There comes a time in the lives of most women when an ovum, fertilized with sperm, will implant itself into her uterine wall. This is nature’s first step in its attempt to continue the human race. Currently, when this implantation occurs, the impregnated woman has the right to allow the embryo to nourish itself into existence or to eliminate all chances of that embryo attaining life through abortion. Every species of plant and animal on earth reproduce in one way or another. How could something as ancient and fundamental as reproduction turn into one of the most hotly contested moral debates in history?
The question can only be answered if we first examine the intellectual psyche of the human animal. Since we are currently the most intelligent beings on earth, we use our critical thinking capabilities to selectively choose what should be morally acceptable and what should be deemed unacceptable. To the best of our knowledge, we as humans are the only species in existence that wrestle with moral dilemmas. Absolute morality that will be agreed upon by the majority of a society is extremely difficult to determine since each individual has the ability to decide for themselves what is morally acceptable.
It is because of this decision that our American culture intensely debates issues of morality such as abortion. The debate over abortion pits the rights to life of an unborn fetus against the rights of rational women who want to control what happens to their own body. Does the termination of a pregnancy deprive a human of their right to life? Should our government be allowed the power to regulate what a woman can and cannot do with her own body? These are two of the questions which will be deliberated over throughout the course of this paper.
In his article “Abortion and Infanticide”, Michael Tooley tackles wo important questions about abortion. The first is “what properties must someone have in order to be considered a person, i. e. , to have a serious right to life? ” Tooley answers that anything which completely lacks consciousness, like ordinary machines, cannot have rights. If a being does not desire something such as consciousness, it is impossible to deprive that being of his right to it. In other words, Tooley argues that since a fetus does not show outward desires to have life, it is morally permissible to abort that fetus.
There are three exceptions to this rule that need to be clarified. First, if the being is in a temporary emotionally unbalanced state, such as a deep depression, he should still be allowed rights to life. Secondly, if the being is unconscious due to sleep or some sort of trauma, he should not be deprived of his rights to life. Finally, if the person has been brainwashed by a religious cult or any similar institution into wanting death, he should still be given a right to life.
The second question addressed by Tooley is “at what point in the development of a member of the species Homo Sapiens does the organism possess the properties that make it a person? The law in America currently implies that the fetus possesses the properties that make it a person when it reaches the third trimester or the sixth month of its germination inside the uterus. Is this a reasonable assessment of when a fetus has a right to life? Tooley says “No”. An organism does not have a right to life unless it possesses the concept of a self as a continuous being of mental states.
This definition of possessing a right to life can be applied to newborn babies that do not yet have a concept of a self as a continuous being. Therefore, it is morally acceptable to deprive them of their right to life, or they don’t show desire for life. According to Tooley, the fetus does not have a right to life at any time therefore, the mother of that fetus should have the right to terminate her pregnancy as she so chooses. Tooley implies that until the fetus reaches the age of about three weeks outside the uterus, it does not show signs of wanting life.
Only when the child shows signs of desiring life should the child be given a right to life. These arguments are controversial to say the least. However, they contain a rational opinion of when an organism should be given a right to life. Mary Anne Warren also examines the morality of abortion in her article titled “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion”. She attempts to address the question “how are we to define the moral community, the set of beings with full and equal moral rights, such that we can decide whether a human fetus is a member of this community or not? To accomplish this definition, Warren lists five major criteria she believes are most central to the concept of personhood.
They are: 1. consciousness so that the being is capable of feeling pain 2. reasoning in order to solve relatively complex problems 3. elf-motivated activity independent of genetic or external control 4. the capacity to communicate 5. the presence of self-awareness These criteria could be used to decide whether or not an alien person from another realm of existence should be considered a person, and therefore given human rights.
However, a being does not need to hold all five of these attributes in order to be considered a human being. Warren says possessing only criterion (1) and (2) would be sufficient for personhood. If these criteria are acceptable requirements for a being to be considered human, then a fetus is definitely ot human since it possesses none of these characteristics. Warren says the one exception to an entity being given human status even though they do not meet the above five criterion is someone whose “consciousness has been obliterated”, through trauma, stroke, etc… Warren classifies such a being as a defective human, not a person.
These people may gain consciousness again so their right to life should not be taken away. Richard Werner argues for the fetuses right to life in his article titled “Abortion: The Ontological and Moral Status of the Unborn”. He uses he continuum argument that states “if you and I are human beings, then there is every reason to believe and no good reason to deny that the unborn are also human beings. ” Werner believes that one is a human being from the moment of conception onward and that all previously proposed cut-off points for determining when one is a human are unacceptable.
Werner says these “cut-off” points are unacceptable because there is no clear line that can be drawn in the human’s development from conception to adulthood that can be used to ‘say a being does not have a right to life before that point. ‘ According to Werner, since there is this hazy period in the embryological development of a fetus where it gradually becomes a human, the fetus should be considered a human from the moment of conception onward. Since the fetus will eventually reach humanhood if it is allowed sufficient time to develop, it should not be denied its opportunity for life.
To strengthen his position, Werner uses the comparison of an acorn to a fetus. He states that “admittedly an acorn is not an oak, nor is an ovum or sperm cell a human, but an acorn germinating in the soil is indeed an oak and so is the impregnated ovum a human. He uses this comparison to illustrate when he believes life begins, both for an oak tree and a human being. After the sperm and egg unite, a human is formed, just as an oak tree is formed as soon as the acorn begins to germinate. This analogy poses a difficult problem for the intelligent critic.
The acorn did not require any thought or planning to fall onto the ground and begin germination. Ideally (not always), when a woman has unprotected intercourse, she is aware that she may be planting a seed in her uterus which might turn into a fetus. The woman has the choice to not get pregnant through abstinence hereas the acorn lacks all abilities to make a decision about whether or not to germinate. Because of this fact, the woman should be held responsible for her actions, nor should she be compared to an acorn.
In the essay titled “A Defense of Abortion”, Judith Jarvis Thomson uses her violinist argument to show why abortion should be legal. The argument follows: you wake up one morning and find yourself hooked up intravenously to a famous violinist who is unconscious. You discover the violinist has a fatal kidney ailment and your blood type and kidneys alone are the only things that can save his life. If you choose to unplug yourself from the violinist, he will most certainly die. You were connected to this person against your will and had you known this was going to happen, you would have never given consent.
If you choose to stay hooked to the violinist, he will recover form his ailment in nine months and then go on to live a healthy and productive life. The question of “does this person’s right to life supersede your right to decide what happens to your own body” comes into play at this point. Thomson equates choosing to unattach yourself from the violinist to deciding to have an abortion. She then goes on to state that your actions would most certainly be justified if you chose to disconnect yourself.
According to Thomson, regardless of the fact that the violinist will die if you unplug yourself, your right to decide what happens to your own body outweighs his rights to life. There are a few problems that arise when Thomson’s argument is closely examined. First of all, the fetus is never older than its mother whereas the violinist may be. The “right to life abortionists” focus on the premise that you are taking the life of a child who has its whole life ahead of it. The violinist may have already lived a fulfilling life.
Secondly, the woman was involuntarily hooked to the violinist whereas (in this example) a pregnant woman generally gets pregnant because she chooses to do so. The pregnant woman does not directly give the fetus permission to implant itself in her uterine wall however, she does give it the means necessary to attach itself. If this premise is followed, the pregnant woman chose to impregnate herself, voluntarily. There are exceptions to this premise such as, rape or molestation, which may result in pregnancy that require special attention.
However, for the sake of brevity, the ideal case where the woman chooses to have intercourse in order to give a fetus the necessary means to implant itself will be followed for this argument. Finally, the violinist is not the woman’s child whereas the fetus is. A woman has no biological ties to the famous violinist. Half of her fetuses genetic makeup comes from her chromosomes. This biological link can be a strong bond for the mother to her fetus. The woman connected to the violinist has no personal ties to this person therefore, she may feel no obligation to sacrifice part of her own life in order to save a strangers.
When the issue of contraceptives is brought up, a whole new argument arises. For instance, most devout anti-abortionists agree that the use of the birth control pill is an acceptable form of contraception. These people are ignorant hypocrites. They are either unaware of the fact that the pill works by not allowing the fertilized egg to implant into the uterine wall or else they just choose to ignore it. Therefore, every time a woman has intercourse while she is on the pill, there is a chance she may be causing the death of a ‘child”.
If the right-winged anti-abortionists ere educated in the physiology of the birth control pill, they would have to declare its use immoral. The I. U. D. is a birth control method comparable to the pill. It is a small, Y-shaped piece of plastic that is inserted into the uterus. Whenever a fertilized egg attempts to attach itself to the nutrient-rich uterine wall, the harsh plastic of the I. U. D. scrapes it off. This method also ends a potential life but you don’t hear the anti-abortion extremists protesting its use. Woman who use the I. U. D. , could be convicted of mass murder if the Supreme Court were to outlaw bortion.
If “right-to-lifers are to be consistent in their beliefs, people who strongly believe in a fetuses right to life should only use birth control methods which do not allow implantation of the embryo. The include the male/female condom, diaphragm with foam, the rhythm method, or abstinence. These types of child prevention are not supposed to allow sperm and egg to unite. Other forms of birth control actually end the germination process of an embryo which should be labeled morally unacceptable by anti-abortionists if they are not to be declared hypocrites.
A justification for the woman’s right to have an abortion comes from the potentiality argument. The argument goes: “Jon once was a fetus. Now Jon is a human. It does not follow from this that Jon is now a fetus. ” Jon will never again be a fetus therefore, human rights given to Jon should not be given to the fetus simply because Jon was once a fetus and is now a human. If fetuses were to be given human rights simply because they will one day be a human then we as logical beings would have to alter our entire way of thinking. We could never drop a piece of fabric, for it may one day e sewn into an American flag.
We must not scratch a piece of metal, for it may one day be the fender of a Rolls Royce. The list could go on and on and as it did, it would get more and more ridiculous. The fact that the fetus will one day be a human should not be given consideration when debating abortion because of the potentiality argument. Abortion is an issue that the majority of Americans have a definite opinion about. It can usually be broken down into religious groups. Those who believe strongly in “the word of God” are the ones who admonish abortion and all who practice it.
Some of these extremists would deny a woman the chance for an abortion even in the case where she has been impregnated because of a rape or incest. They site one of the Ten Commandments which states “Thou shalt not kill” as their guiding light. This is ironic since these very people have been known to murder Doctors who perform abortions. Most anti-abortionists are not so drastic. They would allow abortions to be legal under certain circumstances such as pregnancies that occurred because of rape, molestation, or incest. Are these moderates being hypocritical by taking this view?
Regardless of who he father is or how the mother got pregnant, half the genetic make-up of the child still belongs to her. If you are going to take an anti-abortion stance, you should not allow these victimized women to have an abortion. On the other hand, people who support the woman’s right to choose whether or not to have an abortion are typically liberals who don’t affiliate strongly with any one religion. They generally don’t deny that a potential human is being destroyed when an abortion takes place. However, they believe the life and desires of the already living woman outweigh any rights the fetus may have.
Since I am an Epicureanist, I believe each woman should be given the means by which they can get a safe, legal abortion if they so choose. Whatever promotes the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of already living woman should be promoted by the government. The State should not place restrictions on the woman’s right to govern what she does with her own body. Women who are desperate enough to seek out an abortion are not going to abandon the idea simply because the government has declared it illegal. They will search out back alley abortions which would be unsanitary, dangerous, and possibly lethal.
The health of women cannot be put in jeopardy simply because a few bureaucrats have a moral dilemma with abortion. Because having an abortion is legal, does not mean anyone is forced into aborting their fetus. If you choose to carry your child to term, more power to you. However, don’t enforce your morality onto others. Allow people the right to be individuals and establish their own morality. If the government were to step in and attempt to regulate morality in this case, it could create an avalanche of laws concerning moral issues. This country is based on the premise of freedom, let’s keep it that way.
