The Lancet (an influential medical journal) presented in 2007 an article on the rates of induced abortion and its worldwide trend. In the report, it was found that there was an estimated 42 million induced abortions worldwide in 2003, a 4 million decrease from 1996. Worldwide, there were 31 abortions for every 1000 lifebirths in 2003, the rate was highest in Eastern Europe with 105 abortions for every 100 lifebirths (Sedge, Henshaw, Singh, Ahman, & Iqbal, 2007).
These days, especially in the United States, there has been very vigorous debate over legislation on abortion. This debate began in 1973 after a highly controversial lawsuit known as Roe v Wade was concluded. The court held that a woman may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up till the point where the foetus became viable, meaning that it can live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid. The time range would obviously vary with further medical developments.
It had become such a hot button issue that by the 2008 US presidential elections candidates’ abortion position played a major role in the voting. So emotional has this topics been that this war of words has led to the murder of abortionist. A major healthcare bill, which included federal funding for abortion, had barely scrapped through Senate and is now presumed to be dead on arriving in Congress.
What exactly is the issue at hand and what are the arguments for and against the legalisation of pregnancy? This essay will look at the main arguments as objectively as possible and attempt to rationalise through logic on an equal basis of comparison why the Pro-Life option is more justifiable.
Abortion, according to the Singapore Health Promotion Board’s website, “is ending a pregnancy early before the foetus can survive outside the womb. If it occur[s] spontaneously or naturally, it’s commonly referred to as a “miscarriage”. This is usually because the foetus has passed away in the womb. Under these circumstances, the pregnancy may be expelled from the womb naturally or may require surgery…Abortion can also be induced. The foetus together with the placenta is expelled from the womb before it is developed enough to survive and will result in its death.”
The objection that people have to abortion is that of induced/voluntary abortion and it is this latter definition that will be considered when the term is used.
A legal ban on abortion is one that forbids the termination of a baby regardless (unless there are other dire, extenuating reasons) of situation; on the other hand, allowing of abortion usually follows that of Roe v Wade where a woman is allowed to abort a baby for whatever reasons from the time of conception till a certain number of weeks (usually 24-28 weeks), after which the child is legally viable.
The issue here is a zero sum game. It splits down the middle between those who support banning of abortion and allowing of abortion. There is rarely any middle point in this debate.
The supporters of a ban are termed Pro-Life. They are so called because their fundamental argument is that life begins at conception and abortion is another name for murder. The supporters of legalising abortion are called Pro-Choice; because their essential argument is that the decision to abort is an issue of civil rights, and the choice of the parent.
About.com has a webpage that carries the ten main arguments for and against each side. When we hone in on the arguments and the various official definitions what we realise is that there is a basic disconnect between the two groups. This disengagement lies in the idea of viability. The science that a foetus after 24 weeks can with machines live outside the womb is not what is in question. What is in question is the right of a foetus from conception to viability.
A foetus from 24 weeks to 40 weeks (child birth) has a 50%- 70% chance of survival. A week less, and the foetus’ chances of survival when outside its mother’s womb is 20%-30%. Meaning, at 24 weeks, the foetus has the high probability to grow into the fullness of humanity without dying.
Viability is obviously linked to this ability to live outside a womb. For Pro-Choice, this is when a foetus gains personhood and hence rights. For the Pro-Lifers, viability has no validity in rights. The former is clear in distinction between human life and rights while the latter sees both as one and the same.
Evidently, the beginning point in this debate is by considering what gives humans, rights. The key assumption here is that all human beings have inalienable rights, regardless of their intellectual capacity, gender, sex, race, ethnicity, religion, politics, disability etc. The rights of a human person are given on personhood. Two other key assumptions are the human life begins at conception, and that there is at least a Divine Entity.
Why does a human person have inalienable rights? This idea originated in religion (hence the need to assume the God exist) and philosophy, and states in straightforward terms that, a human has universal rights because he is human, and he is a greater being than any other beast or animal because of his humanity. The humanity of a person is what differentiates him from an animal and its source is derived from the conferment of selected-ness, over other beings, either by Divine Grace or through the ability of humans to control other life forms.
It is however, contradictory to human dignity to suggest that humanity can be quantified by visible traits such as conscience, because, firstly in this suggestion, it is implicit that a human without these traits does not have full humanity. For example, a human vegetable that has no conscience because he is unconscious is also considered to have rights, which manifestly is not true in this instance. Secondly, it is not practically verifiable from the human perspective that any of these traits are limited to man only, if humans have rights because he can control other life-forms, than does nature have rights, because he can control and affect humans? Thirdly, religious and personal convictions cannot determine anything in this case because it leads to a circular argument.
Because humanity cannot be quantified, the only fair and unchangeable position that can be taken is that a person’s humanity is derived from his being a part of the human species and having the potential to develop the fullness of his human faculties, whatever that may be. The gauge of viability (and rights) falls precisely because it is variable. This week gauge is variable because increase in technological capability can lead to better care for the baby and hence a higher percentage of survival at earlier; meaning to say, that if in 5 years time, a foetus might have 50% change of survival outside the mother’s womb after 20 weeks, then it has rights at 20 weeks. This is then a confusing argument because a baby at 23 week now is the same as a baby at 23 weeks 2000 years ago, and is the same as a baby at 23 weeks in 2050. If viability confers rights, it is then handing human rights over from his natural dignity as a human species to technology. What we are saying is that a baby at 26 weeks in 1930 has no rights, because he is not viable. This implies therefore that a human’s right is contingent on technology, which is in contradiction to human rights.
Hence a person’s humanity is derived from being part of the species. It then follows that from the moment of conception, which is only normally (i.e not purposely genetically modified) possible between beings of the same species (certain exceptions exist in the animal world, but not humans), the person has already been awarded that humanity and whether it reaches that potential is another thing.
If from the moment of conception is has already been awarded its humanity, it then follows that the foetus has rights and most basic of those rights is that to life.
The woman assumes therefore the role of parent and guardian. Basing this understanding on the legal definition of parenthood and guardianship as we know it, it follows logically that before the child reaches a legal age where he is deemed mature enough to decide for himself, the parent/guardian is responsible for the child’s safety and for making the best decisions for him, including the inculcation of particular values and traits that help the child grow intellectually, emotionally, physically, physiologically, spiritually and psychologically.
Being a parent and guardian, the expectant woman therefore has to guard the child and his rights. This begins therefore right from the moment the child has rights, which is the moment of conception. As a defenceless human, the foetus is intrinsically connected to the woman who becomes the guardian.
When a choice is made for abortion, the foetus’s right to life is hence compromised. A crime is committed against humanity because it is the taking of a human’s life with intent, which is murder, it is murder aforethought.
Pregnancy can only occur normally with intercourse, between man and woman, which in most cases is only lawful when a certain legal age is reached. This legal age, is the age where it is assumed that the couple who performs the sexual act knows the consequences of the sexual act with or without contraceptives. If a couple decides to go ahead with the consummation of the sexual act, than it essentially is a probability game of whether a child will be conceived. This is true regardless of whether the act is procreative in intent or recreational.
Unpreparedness can only be logically defended when a couple does not know what to expect, but considering that the couple have reached the legal age is this a fair assumption? The idea of punishment when a child is conceived makes sense when people have done something wrong. But in what way is the sexual act between two people of legal age or the fertility of a person a crime? The argument also works if only one of the couple is legally aged because he/she is expected to already know the consequences, and as an adult has a responsibility for the actions of the minor.
There are other situations, such as the situation of under-aged sex resulting in pregnancy and rape. These situations are generally more disconcerting because of the circumstances; for the sake of argument logic must be divorced from emotion. In the case of under-aged sex, the couple have already made a mistake, because the act was completed before both parties had knowledge of the fullness of the situation. However two wrongs don’t make a right and aborting the innocent child, in the case where the mother’s life is not in danger, is more an irresponsible cop-out, than it is a solution to the problem. In the case of rape (in most cases a man rapes a woman), it becomes even more distressing, because a child has been conceived against ones will, and the mother is forced to live with the memory of her rape. However the question remains, is the child part of the crime or is he innocent? The child is the fruit of a crime, but he is innocent. Ultimately, however the emotional distress of rape is so much worse than other situations that a case might be made if this is considered a mitigating circumstance.
Another argument that is used to justify abortion, and rising in importance is civil rights. The idea being that abortion is a civil rights issue and that the ban on the right to abort is an affront to woman’s rights. A fallacy is committed because it appeals to the slippery slope consequence of a belief. A human and legal right to freedom is only given when it does not affect some other person and his rights. In this case however, it is in the protection of another human’s rights that a abortion will be banned. In fact, if a foetus is allowed to be aborted, which is tantamount to murder, than one really steps into a slippery slope, of one is allowed to kill the weakest and least defensible of humans, why can’t any other human be killed?
In conclusion, if one puts aside emotion and goes to logic, it does not seem logical that rights can be dependent on viability which means that rights are derived from life. There is hence a moral and legal obligation to protect life right from conception.
