An Argument against Gilbert Meilander on the Subject of Abortion

For the past decade the subject of abortion has been a hot topic for debate worldwide. It has quickly joined the ranks of race and war as one of the most debated controversial subjects, however, it is very clear that an agreement will never occur. When the issues of human emotion. Morality and law are all thrown together. And a solid decision is to be made disagreements and even violence. Abound All because someone decided to make abortion not simply a matter of choice. But a matter of morals which has led to a massive debate over a subject that should never have been questioned in the first place. An anonymous author of an online pro-choice article states that every woman in America has the right to decide what to do with their bodies. No government or group of people should feel that they have the right to dictate to a person what path their life should take.

Still, there are two sides to every argument and Gilbert Meilander holds a strong position using Catholic morality and moral thought as his defense. Arguing emotion and basic human rights against Religious ethics. Is a tough battle simply for the reason that its tough to argue and reason with the word of God as interpreted by a religious scholar. In addition, it appears that compared to the argument of whether or not abortion should be a womans choice.

Meilanders own writing seems to be a decidedly biased, close-minded view of a major societal issue. Meilanders writing centers around two essential elements at the core of the traditional Catholic view, those being. An affirmation of the equal rights of every human life to protection, and Justification of indirect killing in some (but not all) cases where life conflicts with equal life. He also feels that Catholic moral thought does at times conflict with our most basic human intuitions and seems to consider insufficiently the fact that the nature we know is disordered and cannot be equated with creation as it comes from the hand of the Creator. Meilander also adds that those abortions that Catholic teaching does allow are firmly limited to a meticulously prepared set of cases and thereby avoiding the danger of justifying more than we had originally intended. In summary, according to Catholic teaching abortion its self is to be condoned unless the situation fits into the situations set aside by the church, e.gif carrying the baby to full term will directly affect the mothers health or even cause her death.

It is a well known fact that Catholics are primarily pro-life, however, it seems safe to say that these pro-lifers are merely anti-choice, and are campaigning to put womens futures and lives into the hands of the government. By masking their argument with the word of God most pro-lifers feel it is their duty to save the lives of the innocent and unborn. They are so adamant about their argument that they feel they have a solution to every problem an unwilling mother faces. They recommend adoption. Or assistance programs that help finance young mothers during the first few years of their childs life. What is not taken into consideration is this. The reality of the situation of adoption is that most of the potential parents looking to adopt are middle class white couples. Most of the babies given up for adoption (or that are aborted) are of mixed race, and truthfully most of the potential couples do not want these children. This is why there are several year waiting lists for parents. And many children without homes that will grow up as wards of the state. As for the financial plans for young mothers. The truth is there is obviously not enough money to fund every young mothers first year with her baby. So it is then put back into the hands of the pro-life funders to decide whose life is more important. A stance in which they are used to arguing against.

Pro-lifers are also out to get laws passed that would make abortion illegal, it seems as though they fight their fight and argue their points but have little to no thought of what will become of the child and the mothers future. It is a very good point that abortion should not be used as a means of contraception. On the other hand, what would happen if a mother werent able to get an abortion because it was illegal and she had to carry her baby to term? Chances are she would not proactively search, much less pay for prenatal care, she may drink do drugs, or anything else she could do to possibly harm the life of her baby. When the baby is bom if the circumstances were right the mother might harbor resentment even hatred toward the baby that hindered her from ever reaching the goals in life that she wanted. The most important thing pro-lifers are concerned with is the fact that the baby is living. The author form the online article says that when a woman gets an abortion the fetus is given no choice. But, in effect, what they really are saying is that the power of choice should be taken away from the mothers, giving the unborn child and opportunity to be brought into a loveless, lonely and uncaring world.

Would the Catholic moral view agree with any of these points? Most likely not since the pro choice position directly resists the fundamental natural law. Do good and avoid evil. Though, to pro. choice activists abortion is not seen as evil it is seen as almost an act of mercy for both the mother and child: the mother not having to sacrifice her life to a child she most likely cant support and the child not growing up in an unhappy home without the necessary experiences and joys of life every child should have.

It is reassuring to know that Catholic moral law does bend even if it is only a small step, but by giving approval to women whos lives are being threatened or young women who got pregnant by means of incest or rape to have an abortion the church is still allowed to mandate what women can and can not do with their lives and bodies. It is infuriating to think that a woman would be convinced to put the word of God or a priest before her own natural feelings, and that outspoken opinionated people such as Gilbert Meilander actually advocate for a mass of cells right to life at the expense of a young woman and possibly her family. It is a debate that will go on indefinitely, most likely not seeing an end or an agreement in this lifetime. It will continue to divide society, cultures and religions, but ultimately it is the womans choice.

Cite this page