You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Some of the thinking on abortion contains many contradictions. The maladies of our age - divisiveness and fragmentation, so pernicious to an individual's peace of mind as well as to universal peace on earth - are exposed most blatantly in those contradictions. What does it mean when we read that “many hospitals do not see pregnancy termination as a priority?” Who represents the hospitals? Is it a group of dissident doctors who revolt against the progressive view of the majority? Is it administrators who arrogate to themselves the right to decide what promotes health and what is destructive to the physical, mental, and emotional well-being of a woman and her family?
The physician's ethics are at stake, not the administrator's. It is they who share the main burden of responsibility for a new definition of death and of life because of the stress on the survival of organs for use as transplants to prolong life. But who grants that right to life to a cluster of cells, and denies it to promising young people slaughtered on battlefields created by a whimsy of false pride in power? How can such incongruities exist on the part of certain organizations or institutions who profess an interest in the welfare and pursuit of happiness of individuals?
Individual freedom, universal freedom, cannot be tampered with. Where there is a choice, each woman has the inalienable right to decide about the functioning of her body and the well-being of her family. A holistic and comprehensive view of individuals and groups of people has to be fostered rather than prevented. Only marked alienation from one's essential humanity permits charity toward a small pre-embryonic mass and obliterative cruelty toward a life in full bloom.