Abortion: Is it Moral?

ABORTION dates back to ancient times when pregnancies were terminated with herbs, sharp implements, violent exercise and other disturbing techniques.

Over the course of history, induced abortions have been a source of debate regarding the morality and legality of the practise.

But with 46 million abortions performed each year and 21st century’s growing demand for independence, the pro-choice argument is ever emerging. I will examine the arguments in support of abortion, their criticisms and give my own opinion on what I believe to be morally acceptable.

The argument falls into several categories but a woman’s right to make her own decisions forms the basis of the pro-choice viewpoint. The struggle for women’s rights began in Biblical times, and it was only in 1928 when women got the vote, that their views were finally taken seriously.

Feminists argue that their right over their reproductive system is a fundamental right without which women cannot live in liberty. Gregory Pence says that a basic principle in civilised countries is that “competent adults possess the right to make personal decisions.” And Mary Anne Warren writes that “To deny a woman access to abortion is to deprive her of the right to control her own body” So, abortion is morally permissible because a woman’s rights are most important, but what about the rights of the foetus?

Warren explores this idea, but argues that a foetus has no rights because it is not a member of the moral community. It is not a person, and so it cannot be regarded as equal to those who are.

She puts forward six criteria of personhood; Sentience (the ability to have conscious experiences), emotionality (to feel happy or sad), reason (to solve complex problems), communication (the ability to give messages), self-awareness (having a concept of yourself) and moral agency (moral principles and ideals).
Warren concludes that a foetus in the early stages of development satisfies none of the criteria of personhood.

Michael Tooley agrees. He says “An organism possesses a serious right to life only if it possesses the concept of a self as a continuing subject of experiences and other mental states.” For Tooley, you must be self-conscious to have a right to life. Since a foetus doesn’t, it makes no sense to grant it moral rights strong enough to override the woman’s rights to liberty, bodily integrity, and even life itself.

However, even if the foetus is a human being, and even if it has the right to life, abortion is still morally permissible according to some. Judith Thompson uses the violinist analogy to illustrate this. She asks us to imagine being kidnapped and our bloodstream connected to a violinists, who has an illness that will kill him unless he is allowed to share your kidneys for nine months. Although the anti-abortion approach would say that you are obliged to stay connected to the violinist (because he is a human being and all humans have the right to life), the pro-choice view says that it is absurd to suggest that your refusal to do so would be the moral equivalent of murder.

Warren highlights this and claims that “A law which required you to stay in bed with the violinist” (in other words, a law which prohibited abortion) “is unjust since unwilling persons ought not to be required to be extremely Good Samaritans.” The general consensus is that a woman should not have to make enormous personal sacrifices for the sake of other individuals to whom they have no special prior obligation.

Thompson’s analogy faces some criticism. The analogy suggests that the person who was kidnapped was in no way responsible for their situation, nor could he foresee being attached to the violinist. Thompson argues therefore, intentionally or unintentionally, that a woman has a right to choose abortion only in cases where she is in no way morally responsible for her pregnancy. For instance, abortion is acceptable in the case of rape.

Situation Ethics takes the same approach. If a 12-year old girl with Downs’ Syndrome was raped and discovered to be pregnant, the foetus is likely to be largely ignored at the expense of the wellbeing of the 12-year old girl. Also consider Utilitarianism which would suggest that the abortion of the foetus may be the greatest good for the greatest number.

But Warren questions a woman who becomes pregnant not through rape but because she did not use available forms of contraception. Or even in the case of a woman who became pregnant intentionally, but then changed her mind.

A pro-choice viewpoint is likely to suggest that we cannot expect a woman who forgets her contraceptive pill for one day to complete an unwanted pregnancy. And this might be the case, for another branch of the pro-choice argument says that a foetus at such an early stage of development is not a person. Although this links to Warren’s six criteria, this approach focuses more on the scientific evidence.

The question of when life begins has plagued the abortion debate. Consider this set of premises; it is wrong to take a human life, a foetus is a human life, therefore, abortion is wrong.

However, if a foetus, for whatever reason, does not possess human life, we may reach a different conclusion; it is wrong to take a human life, a foetus does not possess a human life, therefore, abortion is morally permissible.

Pope Pius IX claims that the foetus is a human person from the moment of conception and so abortion is always murder. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.”

More importantly, the sanctity of life is crucial to religion. Jeremiah 1, verse 5 says, “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you” indicating that for Christians at least, life begins before contraception does.

However, others argue that the ovum is too different from anything we would recognise as a person to be treated the same. Some believe that there is a continuous development in foetal growth but argue that there is a point at which it is not a human being. There is a continuous growth from acorn to oak tree, but an acorn is not an oak tree, just as a fertilised ovum is not a person.

Some have suggested that birth marks the beginning of true moral status, and a foetus is not a person, just as sperm and ovum are not persons. In which case, abortion would be considered acceptable, although Jonathan Glover rejects this idea because of the similarity between foetuses and premature babies.

Women’s rights and what constitutes personhood all form a debate which has raged for thousands of years. But there are some factors which even anti-abortionists can excuse. Rape is one of these, but a threat to the mother’s life has also caused some to reconsider their approach.

The Doctrine of Double Effect states that in some cases of abortion, the foetus is not the most important factor in ethical consideration. If the mother’s life is considered to be of greater value than that of the foetus, then she clearly must have considerable rights.

For instance, if a woman has cancer of the uterus and needs an urgent hysterectomy, an abortion is necessary to save the woman’s life. An abortion may be justified since it is the secondary result of a primary act. By removing the uterus, the foetus will die, but this was not the primary intention of the operation. In this case, it is not the foetus which is the most important factor in ethical consideration, but the mother’s life.

For all the arguments in support of abortion, very few address the consequences of anti-abortion, but advocates of a right to choose abortion point to the terrible consequences of prohibiting it, especially while contraception is still largely unreliable.

Mary Ann Warren argues that worldwide, thousands of women die each year from illegal abortions, and many more suffer from complications that may leave them injured or infertile. Furthermore, women who are poor, underage or otherwise vulnerable suffer most from the absence of safe and legal abortion. Abortion then, must not only be considered permissible, but legal for the very safety of the mother.

Abortion has happened, it happens and for as long as people are having sex, it will continue to happen. But is it justified? I would argue that only when abortion adheres to a set of solid, moral conditions can it ever be considered ethical.

Of course the woman has a right to decide what happens to her body. And in the case of rape and the threat to her life, abortion can be excused, in my view at least.

Forgetting to take your contraceptive pill is one thing, but refusing to use contraception when you are fully aware of the consequences is inexcusable. In America, it seems that abortion is actually becoming a social fashion, with International abortion giant, Planned Parenthood, setting up a line of coffee mugs, bumper stickers and t-shirts with the phrase “I had an abortion.” Journalist David Warren has even suggested the line “I eat unborn babies for breakfast.” This attitude, in my opinion, is completely unjustifiable.

Whilst I take the sanctity of life very seriously, I believe that it is the woman’s right to make her own decisions, providing that she is not careless and inconsiderate in her actions. Only in this case, do I believe that abortion can ever morally justified.