Being Pro Choice a Series of Observations

In the conflict and the divide on abortion, there is something that anti-abortion proponents have overlooked. Many of those who oppose abortion tend to equate being pro choice with being pro abortion, this is not necessarily the case. In my view being pro choice means allowing a woman to exercise the freedom of choice that God imparted to human kind and made manifest through the operation of the intellect, the will, and the spirit. The manner in which a woman chooses to exercise her rights to life, liberty, and to ultimately pursue happiness are a function of the freedom of choice bestowed by God upon humankind. Thomas Aquinas maintained that God endowed humankind with a rational mind comprising the intellect, the will and a spiritual soul made manifest through the conscience. The combination of these elements, permits humankind to exercise their freedom of choice, (Aquinas, Sum I, Q. 83, Art. 1). Aquinas defined freedom of choice as the capacity to react positively or negatively to the abstract and immaterial universal. The ability to react either in a positive or a negative way constitutes the action of the human will as instituted and moved by the intellect Id: (Aquinas, Sum I, Q. 82, Art. 4). Consequently, humankind has been rendered subject to the choices that they make, the only qualification being that an individual cannot act in a manner that is discordant with his intellect and will because, to do so is unnatural. Every imputable act undertaken by an individual is weighed and adjudged to determine its permissibility. Within the scope of Thomistic philosophy, the question of whether an imputable act is permissible or impermissible requires measuring the act against the Principle of Double Effect. In his volume entitled Known from the Things that Are: Fundamental Theory of the Moral Life Reverend Martin D. O’Keefe, S.J. outlined the four conditions that form the principle: 1. The action must be morally good or at least morally indifferent (neither good nor evil); 2. The good effect must not be obtained through the evil effect, i.e. by means of the evil affect; 3. The evil affect must not be intended, but rather only tolerated; 4. There must be a sufficiently serious reason to justify allowing the evil affect (O’Keefe 1987, 53-55). The ability to conduct the operations necessary to weigh the relative morality or immorality of imputable acts; and by extension engaging in the decision making processes that characterize everyday life forms the basis for the freedom of choice that distinguishes human beings from other classes of animals. The freedom to choose the manner of our existence permits a person to develop his own system of ethics; one that accounts for his own cultural inheritances and personal experiences. Aquinas in discussing the Principle of Double Effect argue that a good end is lessened through and evil means see:( Aquinas, Sum I-II, Q. 18 Art. 4). "Reply to Objection 3: Nothing hinders an action that is good in one of the way mentioned above, from lacking goodness in another way. And thus it may happen that an action which is good in its species or in its circumstances is ordained to an evil end, or vice versa. However, an action is not good simply, unless it is good in all those ways: since "evil results from any single defect, but good from the complete cause," as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv)" In effect what Aquinas is that an end must be weighed against the means used to achieve it. For these reasons I would assert that being pro choice simply means allowing every woman the right to exercise their God given intellectual gifts to judge whether or not the termination of a pregnancy is an imputable act, whether it is justifiable or not, and is the proper course of action based upon her circumstances. My own personal views on abortion have no bearing on the issue, because, it is not my place to dictate or legislate how a woman should, and can exercise her freedoms. Forcing a woman to carry to term a pregnancy that resulted from sex crime, or that threatens her life if she does not want to so, is a transgression against her fundamental rights to life, liberty, and happiness. Attempting to legislate morality, and forcing her to do against her will is an attribute of a theocracy, and not a republic. While, those children that survive abortion procedures should be protected, this should not be a bar to prevent victims of rape, incest, forced prostitution, and of other forms of sexual slavery from obtaining abortions if they choose to do so. Also, women whose lives are endangered by a pregnancy should have the freedom to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy.