One of the most compelling ideas to come out of the 19th century was John Stewart Mill’s ‘Harm Principle.’ Mill believed that the actions of an individual could be permitted as long as they didn’t harm another.

This principle is especially relevant in the issue of abortion, which was brought back into the spotlight Monday when tens of thousands rallied in Washington, D.C., for the annual March for Life. The march brings people from all sides of the anti-abortion movement to one event that brings awareness to the issue of abortion. It also marks the occasion of the Supreme Court’s decision of Roe v. Wade.

Most people engage the abortion issue by examining if there is a constitutional right to an abortion. This is easily answered. No. There is no constitutional right granted to individuals anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. The states individually have the authority to determine whether abortion should be legal. The Supreme Court committed one of the worst cases of judicial malpractice when it laid down its decision in Roe v. Wade, interpreting the constitution with a perverse sense of activism.

The other popular way of engaging the abortion debate is by searching for a right to do whatever one wants with one’s body. As individuals, we have a natural right of ownership of our own bodies. This right pertains to all beings including the unborn. At this point the pro-abortion crowd’s argument goes astray.

If it is acknowledged that there is ownership over one’s self and another cannot infringe on that, then how can abortion be permitted? Can the perceived ‘good’ — as Mill puts it — of the mother be given precedent over that of the child? Unless there is a life or death situation no such precedent can exists. This is something that Mill felt was important, stating in his work ‘On Liberty’ that the interests of a person were not sufficient reason to do harm to another.

It’s extremely important to look at the issue from the side of the life that is being ended as a result of abortion. People must ask themselves if the unborn is in fact a living being. If that answer is yes, as I believe most will conclude, I would contend that one’s view on abortion would be without doubt on the side of the unborn, and those who recognize a life but still hold the opinion supporting termination have some explaining to do.

An argument often used against those opposing abortion is that the movement is fueled by the religious right and that banning abortion is an act of imposing said religion on someone. It is true that many who attend are religious, but the pro-abortion movement is neither mutually exclusive nor driven by faith. The rejection of abortion is intrinsic in medicine, whose own Hippocratic Oath commands doctors to stay away from such procedures. Science has shown many people the light on this issue via embryology and other areas of study.

As individuals and as a country we have a moral responsibility to stand up for the lives and rights of all our fellow humans. In the spirit of Mill’s ‘Harm Principle’ we must protect the unborn child because no entity and no person can morally take its rights away with the justification that it has a superior right over the life.

Patrick Mocete is senior political science and policy studies major. His column appears every Thursday. He can be reached at pdmocete@syr.edu.   

Published on January 25, 2012 at 12:00 pm