JUSTIFIES ABORTION

Montreal Gazette - March 18, 2000
Editorial / Op-Ed
The debate isn't over: Abortion is legal, but that doesn't mean it is morally acceptable in all circumstances
MARGARET A. SOMERVILLE

The Gazette's March 11 editorial ``Dealing with abortion'' states: ``Like it or not, society's moral debate on abortion is over: the courts have said abortion on demand is here to stay.'' The last part of this statement is correct in practice (though not in legal theory), but the first part is wrong.

Because abortion is legal does not mean that it is right, in the sense of ethically and morally right, in all circumstances. And society's moral debate on the ethics of abortion is not over. To regard, as The Gazette notes, the growing frequency of abortion as ``one of society's great tragedies'' and as ``inflict(ing) a difficult emotional legacy'' shows this. Indeed, one reason for the increase in abortion might be that many young women have made the same error as The Gazette, namely, they have assumed that because abortion is not illegal, it is ethically and morally acceptable in all circumstances.

Some people are against abortion no matter what the woman's reason for seeking it. Many people believe, however, that there can be an ethical justification for abortion in some circumstances, even if they, personally, would never have an abortion. Where we disagree is what these circumstances are.

They can be placed on a continuum: at one end, there is strong consensus that when a woman's life is in danger or her health seriously threatened by continuance of the pregnancy, she must have the choice whether or not to continue the pregnancy. Further along this continuum many people believe in a wider range of ethical and moral justifications for abortion than just a serious threat to the woman's life or health. And, at its other end, there are some people, but many fewer, who regard abortion as a form of contraception, an insignificant event - as more or less ethically and morally equivalent to having one's teeth cleaned. Consequently, where most of us differ is not on whether abortion needs to be ethically justified (many and probably most people, including those who are pro-choice, believe that it does), but on what constitutes a sufficient justification for it.

We might, however, have lost the capacity to convey the message to young women that all abortions require ethical justification. This probably results from the abortion debate becoming polarized into two extreme views: that abortion is never ethically justified and should always be illegal, or that it requires no ethical justification and there should be no legal restrictions on it. Young women who believe that their only option is to choose between these two alternatives are likely to choose the latter.

Requiring ethical justification for abortion is necessary if we are to pass on to future generations a value of profound respect for the transmission of human life from one generation to the next. And this probably requires that we have an attitude toward this transmission that can be called ``secular sacred.'' This means that, quite apart from any religious beliefs, the passing on of human life requires the utmost respect and demands great responsibility. In other words, while we might engage in casual sex (although doing so also needs ethical consideration), we should never engage in the casual transmission of human life. Probably this is yet another distinction that we have not communicated to young people.

There are also other reasons why abortion might not be treated by young women with the ethical seriousness that it deserves. To be pro-choice has been characterized as being pro-women and their rights, and feminist. Having ethical reservations about abortion has been characterized in the opposite way. It can be expected, therefore, that young women would choose the former. But we should sever these automatic links and knee-jerk characterizations to give young women the widest range of choices about their self-identity. A woman can have strong ethical concerns about abortion and still be a feminist. Historically, it is understandable why access to safe abortion was linked to recognition of women's rights. Women placed their lives and health in danger in seeking unsafe, illegal abortions. But the situation we now face, a loss of a sense that abortion raises the most serious ethical questions, is equally damaging to women - and very damaging to society.

The change in attitudes to abortion may also have come about because of a change in the basic presumption governing it. In Canada, this change resulted from the Morgentaler cases, which struck down the Criminal Code provision that limited, but did not preclude, access to abortion. Prior to these cases, the basic presumption, which was reflected in the law, was that carrying out an abortion was an exception to the general principle that abortion was not ethically and morally acceptable. The basic presumption now is that abortion is acceptable and that only in exceptional cases (for instance, a fetus was clearly viable and the woman sought an abortion for no medical reason) would it be seen as ethically unacceptable. Keep in mind that even in these latter cases, because there is no law in Canada limiting abortion, such an abortion would be legal.

The messages given by these two different presumptions can each be described in another way. The first is: ``No, abortion is not ethically acceptable, but in some circumstances it can be justified.'' The second is: ``Yes, abortion is ethically acceptable, but in exceptional circumstances it would not be ethical (even though it is legal).'' The choice between these two basic presumptions will affect the societal values about abortion that are handed on to the next generation. And if abortion is seen by society as prima facie ethically acceptable - or, even more so, if it is not seen as raising any ethical issues at all and in no circumstances is it restricted by law - it should not be surprising that young women would increasingly use it.

The Gazette editorial focuses on sex education as the solution to concerns about the rise in abortion rates. While this might help, I very much doubt that it will be anywhere near sufficient. It is reminiscent of many scientists' response to the public's concern about some of the uses of the new genetics. These scientists assume that members of the public are scientifically ignorant, that their concerns arise from this ignorance. In fact, much of the public's concern arises from a deep moral anxiety about these technologies, not a failure of understanding. The same might be true in the opposite direction, concerning abortion. We may have a generation of young women who have no moral anxiety about abortion and simply educating them, which often results in rational but not emotional or moral understanding, is unlikely to change this.

The values surrounding the transmission of human life are not just a matter of information or something that can be brought up, on the side, by teachers ``when discussing literature or biology.'' In order to ``talk about sex'' in its fullest context, in the richness it deserves, we must communicate a sense of the human spirit as well as factual information. This requires a larger sphere than just the classroom. The values communicated to future generations about matters such as abortion - which are really values about respect for life, itself, its transmission and, in the context of the new genetics, its inherent integrity - must also come from families, communities and society.

In our secular, pluralistic, multi-cultural societies, where we cannot find a ready consensus on important values, it is very difficult to communicate the values that should govern an issue such as abortion. But this makes it more, not less, important to try to do so. We cannot afford a values vacuum regarding abortion, no matter what our views about it.

- Margaret A. Somerville is Gale professor of law and a professor of medicine at McGill University's Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law.