26 Oct

By Rabbi Alan Friedlander

Claiming that only a pregnant woman has a right to decide if the pregnancy is brought to full term, is the same ethical dilemma. The man contributed to the procreative act. The woman who consents to that in a manner that makes procreation a distinct possibility, is effectively accepting the terms of that agreement. Both parties have to be responsible before and after the act.

Claiming that only women have a right to decide the fate of the fetus, her body, her choice, is ethically comparable to a case of a lottery pool, where two friends pooled their resources to buy a winning lottery ticket. One can't later on claim that as they are the one who physically possessed the ticket, therefore they have all rights to the money. Any court of law would divide the winnings between them. Such pooled resources must be shared. Because the transaction would not exist without the pooling of resources.

Thus her body, her choice, may sound like protecting a woman's rights, but is actually unethical. As is more obvious with lot of money on the line, people can act badly and try to cheat fellow lottery pool players. Similarly, a good woman cannot be one who cheats her lover. We are talking here of the most basic terms of fair play.

The rationale of child support from a separated father recognizes this implicit understanding. Just because he may or may not wish to acknowledge the responsibility, does not mean that it does not exist. The consequence of not holding fathers responsible increases broken homes and single mothers. Adding to the perception of motherhood as pain and drudgery, by consequence of this immoral system, only adds further incentives to would be mothers to seek abortion. All parties involved have to make responsible choices before and after, for the fairest result to occur.

The whole unspoken argument behind her body, her choice, is set up to grant unlimited immorality and irresponsibility to both consenting parties, which often ends in denying life to the child, fairness to the father and while jeopardizing the lifelong emotional wellbeing of the would-have-been mother. Society crumbles and the foundation of the nation sinks into the mud.

Thus the Pro (Cruel) Choice movement's goal is not to aid society, but to make all things revolve around self gain and freedom for mindless passion, rather than seek what is good and best for societal health. Narcissistic irresponsible behavior is not a healthy foundation for good public policy.

Dealing realistically and responsibly, with the reality of life after the moments of passion, before consenting to passion, conversely, decreases the allowance for unfettered immorality. Whether or not we care for those most vulnerable is the moral difference between the rise and fall of nations. This includes not giving false "only options" to vulnerable young women, that are not options at all.

Abortion by choice is unhealthy for a nation, destructive for a society, devastating to a family, and deadly to the not yet born.

We can thus say, the ethical answer to her body, her choice, therefore, is our investment, our choice.

Let's share the responsibility.

* The email will not be published on the website.