Abortion has been subject to a very heated debate in the United States. While this has been a polarizing topic in politics, I believe the population has a more nuanced view. The Pew Research Center found out that about three in the U.S. adults are religiously unaffiliated. That’s a whopping drop down from 75 % a decade ago for self-identified Christians.
While the constitution guarantees the religious freedom of the citizens, it also means that religious beliefs are entirely a person’s own business. All faiths, be it Christians, Moslems, Jews or even “cults” are equally protected. If religion is entirely a person’s private business then contradicting standpoints on “heavenly affairs” mean that such issues cannot create laws affecting everyone. Therefore the United States is a secular country, where we have a strict demarcation of heavenly law and worldly law. This also means that no majority or minority can superimpose their belief onto someone else.
Now, the argument of those, who’re in favor of banning abortion is that every life is precious and unborn babies are innocent. This is a fair argument from both a religious perspective as well as from the worldly vista. While nowadays sex is more of a pleasant and fun activity, the function of the sexual intercourse is to procreate. Pleasure is the byproduct and not the baby. This means that both partners carry a responsibility while having intercourse. A hole in the condom, ineffective birth control or hastily taken postcoidal contraception that didn’t work its magic may explain the undesired pregnancy, but they ultimately don’t exonerate a person from their responsibility of shouldering the burden of a new life. In this scenario I’m against an abortion.
So, under which circumstances is it okay to take a life? A good approach to this question is to determine the victim and perpetrator in each case. Circling back to the argument of the opponents of abortion laws, that each life is sacred and the unborn babies are innocent, we have to determine if they become - voluntarily or involuntarily - perpetrators or not. Is it okay to execute a vicious criminal? There is definitely such a sentiment, depending on their crimes the culprit is guilty of (especially in red states). And is it okay to take a life in self-defense? In most states the laws regarding self-defense are crystal clear. Especially when an armed person runs toward you. The mental state of the attacker doesn’t change the fact that you have the right to protect your own life.
When a woman get pregnant after she is raped, she’s without a doubt the victim. Apart from carrying the baby, that reminds her of her martyrium, she’s also burdened by shame, physical and psychological anguish as well as a financial burden. After all, she has to take medication, visit her gynecologist and has to bring up a child. So, is the baby innocent? I would argue that it’s only partly innocent. Just like the attacker, whose intellect may not have been fully developed (i.e. crazy) is at one hand innocent and on the other a perpetrator, the same logic applies to the baby. The baby is in this case the tool or the cancer tormenting the victim, the mother. Therefore it is her right to abort the baby. We can apply the same framework in the case of an abortion, if the birth endangers the mother’s life. Here, the baby is again - even thought involuntarily - the perpetrator that would cause the death of the mother. So yes, the choice to abort a baby is the right of a woman if the new life would cause her harm.