Abortion was legalised in the UK in 1967. One of the reasons for this was to stop dangerous ‘backstreet abortions’ – illegal abortions which were often damaging to health or fatal. However, Britain does not technically advocate a system of ‘abortion on demand’ – there must be a valid reason for the abortion and two doctors must agree to the operation before it can be carried out; technically there should be occasions when doctors deny women an abortion, however, this rarely if ever happens. Viability is when the baby is likely to survive if born prematurely, the current time being set at 24 weeks. Before viability an abortion can be performed on one of the following four grounds:
1) The mother’s health is in danger
2) The baby is severely disabled
3) The baby will cause stress to the mother
(e.g. if she was raped)
4) The baby will cause stress to the mother’s
family (e.g. financial burden)
However, after 24 weeks when the
baby is viable the law becomes stricter and an abortion is only legally allowed
for reasons (1) and (2), if the mother’s health is in danger or if the baby is
severely disabled
The
point of viablility used to be 28 weeks, however, due to improved medical
technology this had to be changed to 24 weeks. It has been known for babies to
survive when born prematurely at 22 or even 21 weeks, however, the chances of
this are extremely remote and the child is likely to suffer from lifelong
health issues. There are approximately 185,000 abortions per year in the
UK, most of which happen before 12 weeks on the grounds of the mother’s
psychological wellbeing. Many abnormalities, such as spine or heart defects,
cannot be seen until scans at 20 weeks, leading to later abortions. There are
around 200 abortions after 24 weeks per year. Early term abortions are
performed by extracting the foetus up a tube, often killing it first by
dismemberment. Late term abortions generally involve killing the foetus with
drugs before labour is induced and the dead foetus given birth to.
Three Basic Positions
There are three basic positions
that a person can take concerning the morality of abortion:
1) Abortion is always wrong.
2) Abortion is sometimes wrong, sometimes right,
depending on the circumstances.
3) Abortion is never wrong.
There are many people who believe
that abortion is always wrong no matter what the situation might be. This is an
absolutist position and it is famously
the position of the Roman Catholic Church. This view is often called the ‘Pro Life’ view because those who adopt
this position generally use the idea of Sanctity of Life as a key principle. It
is sometimes also called the conservative view as it is the traditional view on
abortion.
On the other end of the
perspective there are those who believe that there is nothing morally wrong
with abortion, and therefore that a woman is always entitled to have an
abortion if she wishes to have one. This is also an absolutist position because it rejects the importance of
circumstances, the morality and principles stay the same regardless of context.
This position is usually called the ‘Pro
Choice’ view because it emphasises the importance of the mother having the
choice to do as she wishes with her own body and her own life. It is sometimes
also called the liberal view as it believe that people should be free to make
their own choices.
We must be aware of the language
that is being used here because both of the terms ‘Pro Life’ and ‘Pro Choice’
are effectively forms of propaganda. Each wishes to get across a positive
message about their perspective and to imply that the other side of the debate
is ‘Anti Life’ or ‘Anti Choice’ respectively.
There is a middle position,
according to which abortion is sometimes right and sometimes wrong depending on
the circumstances. Many people would argue that it is wrong to kill an innocent
foetus unless there is a very good reason, for instance, an ectopic pregnancy
where the foetus is growing in the mother’s fallopian tubes and could kill her.
This is a relativist position and
strictly speaking it is the position of the British law. It is also the
position of the Church of England which believes that the life of the foetus is
precious and needs to be protected, but that sometimes consideration for the
mother or her family must take precedence. The Church argues that abortion may
be allowed in circumstances such as rape, severe disability, and risk to the
mother. In this case there is an attempt to balance ideas of the sanctity of
life with alternative ideas such as quality of life and the free will of the
mother.
Of course, whether abortion is
morally wrong and whether it should be illegal are two different things. Many
people argue that extramarital affairs are wrong, but this does not mean we
would outlaw them and see them legally sanctioned, e.g. with prison. Some argue
that abortion is similar, perhaps it is wrong, but it should be allowed all the
same.
Reasons why people want abortions
There are numerous reasons why a
woman may wish to have an abortion, and you may feel that some are more morally
justified than others. Here are some examples, but this is not an exhaustive
list:
•
The baby is disabled and will have a poor quality of
life.
•
The baby is disabled and the parents feel they will not
cope.
•
The baby will be so disabled that it will die shortly
after birth (e.g. a heart defect).
•
The mother is very young (e.g. 13).
•
The mother was raped.
•
The father has abandoned the mother and she does not
want his child.
•
The mother’s life is in danger because of the
pregnancy.
•
Contraceptives were used, but failed, resulting in an
unwanted pregnancy.
•
The pregnancy will interfere with the life plans of the
mother, e.g. with her career, or education, or perhaps with her holiday plans.
•
The mother / parents cannot afford to raise the child.
•
The mother / parents themselves are disabled.
•
The mother / parents already have children and do not
want more
•
The mother / parents do not want any children at all.
•
The mother / parents want a boy and the baby is a girl
(or vice versa).
•
The baby is a product of incest.
It is important to realise that
there are alternatives to abortion such as adoption
or fostering, however, it is also
important to realise that these are not very easy options to take for many prospective
parents, for example, adoption means giving birth to the child and then giving
them away to be raised by someone else, but once the baby is born and has been
held in the arms of the mother it may be very difficult or heart breaking to
give the child away. A mother who gives her baby away may spend her whole life
feeling like a failure and wondering where her child is and what it is doing;
psychologically she may be better off simply not giving birth to the child at
all. Moreover, many children given up for adoption never get adopted and
instead grow up in care with no specific family to call their own.
Teleological views on abortion: Utilitarianism
The debate about abortion often
centres on principles, which means that it is often centred around
deontological considerations such as the rights of the foetus, mother, and
father. However, teleological thinkers have much to say about the debate. According
to Jeremy Bentham what makes a being morally relevant is the fact that it can
feel pleasure and pain; in his view this meant that animals were also worthy of
moral consideration to some extent. Early on in pregnancy a foetus has little
or no ability to feel pleasure or pain, and no awareness of its environment, so
it is not morally relevant to a Utilitarian. However, after a certain point
foetuses are able to feel pain, and they are aware of sensations such their
parent’s voices. This at least makes them morally relevant to some degree. However,
being sentient does not necessarily mean that the foetus can never be killed,
after all, under Act Utilitarianism people can be killed if it brings about
“the greatest good.”
An Act Utilitarian will consider
the individual case of abortion and whether it will cause happiness or
unhappiness. Factors such as the potential quality of life for the child, its
mother’s psychological state, and the effects on the mother’s family could all justify
abortions due to their effects on levels of happiness. Abortions could be
justified to prevent a mother from dying, to prevent a family from falling in
to poverty, and so on, but on the other hand, an Act Utilitarian might actually
suggest that sometimes a woman should keep a baby she does not want, for
example, to give it to her sister who cannot have children of her own.
In many ways it was teleological
thinking which led to the legalisation of abortion in the UK in 1967. Many
women were so desperate not to have children that they were driven to undergo unlicensed
and unsafe ‘backstreet abortions’; these could often be seriously damaging to
health or even fatal so it was seen as important to end this. In cases where
the mother could die from pregnancy it was argued there was no reason to
prevent abortion since this would only lead to misery and suffering, and it
will generally lead to the death of the baby too anyway. It was also argued
that abortion could help to lower crime rates and poverty rates by helping to
prevent families from expanding beyond their financial means, especially in
poorer areas. Statistics seem to suggest that this has worked, for example, in
areas of America where abortion has been made freely available both poverty and
crime rates have dropped. Additionally, allowing abortion has helped to free
many women from the misery of having to carry and raise children that they have
no wish for. It has also helped to give women a greater control over their own
lives and so it has increased opportunities for them in terms of their careers,
education, and social standing relative to men.
We can see that there have been
Utilitarian benefits to legalising abortion, however, it has not been without
its downsides. Having an abortion can cause serious strain to a relationship,
especially if the father does not want the child aborted, and in some cases
mothers regret their choice and feel guilty about it, thus leading to
unhappiness or depression. There has also been violence due to abortion; many
people view abortion as murder, and they see the number of abortions going on
in the world as equivalent to genocide. This has led to violence as some Pro
Life campaigners have taken it upon themselves to save these children and
punish the abortionists, whom they see as mass murderers. This is particularly
prevalent in North America; since 1993 there have been 9 people murdered for
their involvement with abortion in the USA, as well as numerous attempted
murders, and since 1977 there have been over 40 bombings and over 170 arsons at
abortion clinics.
Deontological approaches to abortion
Deontological theories
concentrate on the principles involved in moral issues. There are principles
which support abortion and principles which oppose abortion, for example, there
is the clash between the ideas of Sanctity of Life and Quality of Life.
Sanctity of Life is the idea that life is special and sacred, and
therefore should be respected, so that human life is not to be damaged or
destroyed. The idea of Sanctity of Life is often connected to religious
perspectives because the view is taken that God created life and that we are special
because has set human life aside as valuable. However, it is perfectly coherent
to believe that human life is sacred based on secular ideas, such as the view
that all human beings have “reason, conscience, and dignity” (UN Declaration of
Rights), and therefore that we are all valuable.
Quality of Life, on the other hand is about how good and enjoyable
and worthwhile a person’s life is. It is generally argued that factors such as
poverty, disability, and pain detract from someone’s quality of life. Some
people argue that it is better not to live at all than to live a bad life; this
argument is constantly used in the debate about euthanasia, with those in
favour arguing that it is better to be dead than to live in permanent pain. The
same idea is often applied to abortion with the argument being that it is
better not to be born than to live an unsatisfying or painful life. Meanwhile
those who believe in the Sanctity of Life would say that all life is valuable
even if it is not entirely enjoyable, and that all lives have equal value
whether they are rich or poor, abled or disabled, etc.
Deontological philosophers may
also discuss the idea of rights. It will often be argued that the unborn child
has a Right to Life, and therefore
that their life cannot be taken away from them for any reason. Just as we
cannot kill a baby, child, adult human being, so too we cannot kill an unborn
human being, especially since a foetus is completely morally innocent and is
incapable of having committed any wrongful acts. Others might say it is silly
to say a foetus has a right to life when its life depends on its mother and its
live birth is not a certainty.
A deontological view which
supports abortion is that the mother has a Right
to Choose what happens to her own body and that she has a right to determine
her own future, for example, she has the right to choose between having a child
she will have to care for over a period of 18 or more years, or whether she
would rather concentrate on her career or education. Here we have a rights
clash between the rights of the mother and those of the unborn child, and it is
difficult to see whose rights matter more, if the unborn child even has any,
that is. For some it is the rights of the unborn child that are most important
because matters of life and death are more important than those of choice and
lifestyle. Meanwhile some philosophers argue that the foetus does not have any
rights at all because it is not yet a proper person and so the only relevant
consideration is the wishes of the pregnant woman.
Is a foetus a person / when does human life begin?
The idea that a foetus has a
right to life, and so cannot be killed, relies on the idea that it is already a
‘person’ capable of possessing rights. Some argue that since it is a human
being, even if only a small and underdeveloped one, it should be considered a
‘person’ and have rights from the very beginning at conception. Others argue
that it only counts as a ‘person’ part way through pregnancy, or perhaps even
at birth.
The development of a human being
prior to birth is very gradual. At the point of conception an egg is fertilised
by a sperm, producing a zygote, which is simply a single cell organism.
Following this the zygote implants in the womb lining and begins to grow thanks
to cell division and it becomes an embryo. In many cases fertilised eggs are
expelled from the body due to the menstrual cycle so that the potential mother
may have a miscarriage without even realising it. The morning after pill tends
to work this way, by breaking down the womb lining, so there is a debate as to
whether it is a contraceptive or an abortive. Many people are fine with
contraception but against abortion because contraception simply prevents eggs
and sperm mixing and so prevents the creation of a life, whereas abortion
actually terminates a life after it has been created. After two months of
growth the embryo becomes called a foetus because it has a human shape and all
of its vital systems, and it only needs to grow bigger. After 6 months (or 24
weeks) the unborn child has a good chance of survival, with medical help, but
before this time there is little chance of survival, so this point in pregnancy
is called viability and the laws on abortion after viability are much stricter.
Below are some of the key stages in foetal development:
Day 1 - Conception: egg and sperm
join to form a single cell organism (a zygote).
Day 7 - By this point the zygote has become a
multi-celled organism (a blastocyst) and should have implanted in the lining of
the womb.
2 weeks - The Primitive Streak emerges as cells in the
embryo begin to differentiate.
3 weeks - This is the approximate time that the heart
starts to beat.
6 weeks - Brainwaves can be recorded and some key
features such as arms, legs, and the eyes begin to develop.
8 weeks - The cartilage skeleton begins to turn to
bone. All of the main human features are present, but they are underdeveloped;
the life form may now be called a 'foetus' instead of an 'embryo.'
10 weeks - The brain and nerve
fibres necessary for the foetus to feel pain are now developed, indicating that
the foetus may now be sentient.
12 weeks - This is the
approximate time that many mothers start to feel the foetus moving, although it
already moves before it can be felt.
16 weeks - There is evidence
that at this stage the foetus can respond to sound and light.
21 weeks - Although rare, it
has been known for foetuses to survive birth at this stage of development,
though they are likely to suffer from severe health problems such as a lack of
immunity, respiratory problems, etc.
24 weeks - This is the point
when the foetus is considered to be developed enough to survive, with medical
intervention, if it is born early, although survival rates are not high. It is
legally called ‘viability.’ Viability used to be 28 weeks, but this was changed
due to medical advances.
39 weeks - This is generally
when birth occurs, although babies are regularly born a couple of weeks early
or late. Twins are often born several weeks early.
Many people argue that the foetus
only becomes a proper person at birth, before this it is dependent upon its
mother and cannot exist in its own right. This would indicate that abortion is
acceptable anytime during pregnancy. Others argue that when the unborn child
reaches viability it should now be considered to have a right to life, because
it could survive if it was born, and so abortion should not be allowed after 24
weeks. Most abortions happen before 12 weeks and there are campaigners who wish
for abortion to be banned after this period with the exception of emergencies,
since the foetus is able to feel pain and move by this stage, if not earlier. For
some life starts with movement, or brainwaves, or the heart beating, and for
many life starts right back at conception, after all, from this point it does
have its own unique DNA.
One suggestion from religious
perspectives is that human life properly begins at ‘ensoulment’ – when God
places a soul within the foetus. Religious groups disagree on when this
happens, for example, Catholics now believe that it happens at conception,
whilst Muslims commonly believe that it happens at 40 days (just less than 6
weeks). Another traditional position was that it happened around 12 weeks
during the ‘quickening’ when the mother first starts to feel the baby moving.
Michael Tooley, Abortion and
Infanticide
Michael Tooley considers the
ethical problems of abortion in his article Abortion
and Infanticide; what follows below is an explanation of the key ideas in
this article.
Is a foetus a person?
Many people consider the question
‘is a foetus human?’ when they are looking in to the abortion debate, the
presumption being that if it is human then it has a right to life and should
not be killed. Some say it is not human until its heart starts beating, or
until it becomes viable, or until it’s born. However, it seems quite obvious
that it is a human, after all, it has human DNA and it is certainly not a frog
or tree. In philosophy we consider that there is a difference between the word
‘human’ and the word ‘person.’ The word ‘human’ refers to any member of the
specific species homo sapiens, our
species; it is merely a biological word. Meanwhile the word ‘person’ refers to
any creature which deserves to have moral considerations and rights; it is
therefore an evaluative word because it has moral implications. To illustrate
the difference, an alien such as Spock or Worf from Star Trek is most certainly
not a human being, but since they can think, speak, feel pain and pleasure, and
so on, we would have to say that they were ‘persons’ just like us and we would also
have to say that they deserved to be treated morally, for instance, given rights
to free-speech, life, and freedom from torture. So properly considered it seems
that our question should not be ‘when does human life begin?’ so much as ‘when
does a foetus become a person?’
Tooley identifies two extreme
philosophical positions on abortion, although he accepts that it is often the
case that people find themselves in the middle:
The Conservative Position (anti-abortion):
abortion is only permissible to save the life of the mother (the Islamic
position), and perhaps not even then (the Catholic position).
- The foetus is a person
- Killing a person is seriously wrong (murder)
- Abortion kills a foetus
- Therefore, abortion is seriously wrong (murder)
The Liberal Position (pro-abortion): abortion
is the mother’s choice.
- The foetus is not a person.
- There is nothing particularly wrong with
destroying it.
- The mother is a person.
- The rights of a person to self-determination,
particularly over their own bodies, are important.
- Therefore, abortion is acceptable.
Tooley points out that the
Liberal (Pro Choice) position relies on the idea that we can make a neat cut
off point at which stage the unborn child becomes a person, and before which it
has no rights at all, thus allowing for abortion to take place. For some this
is birth, for others it is viability, or another point such as the development
of the nervous system,
However, it is seemingly
impossible to draw such a line and say that the foetus has suddenly become a
person. This is because the process of development is gradual. A new born baby
after 39 weeks of development is not so different from a baby at 38 weeks, and
a baby at 38 weeks development is not so different from a baby at 37 weeks of
development, and so on all the way back to conception. Each daily change is so
small that it should make no difference as to whether the foetus has a right to
life or not. Therefore, the Liberal Position seems untenable – any cut off
point we make will be arbitrary and unfair. Essentially, if it is acceptable to
kill a foetus in the womb then it would also be acceptable to kill newborn
babies: infanticide. If we maintain that infanticide is wrong then we must also
forbid abortion.
Judith Jarvis-Thompson refutes this argument by saying that it is
an example of the ‘slippery slope’ fallacy. There is also a gradual change from
seed to tree, but none the less, an acorn is not an oak tree, and similarly an
egg is not a chicken, and dough mixture is not bread until it has been properly
cooked. It may be difficult to draw a cut-off point somewhere between conception
and birth, but this does not mean a zygote and a babe in arms are the same
thing and entitled to the same rights and treatment.
Tooley argues that what the
Liberal Position needs is a proper definition of personhood which shows that
foetuses do not count as persons, such that abortion can be morally justified. Generally
speaking the idea of personhood is connected to being self-conscious and sentient,
this is why we would count intelligent aliens as ‘persons’ and possibly some
higher animals such as chimpanzees, but certainly not plants and the majority
of animals. Tooley tries to put forward a possible definition of the word
‘person’ which is the following:
X is a person if,
and only if, X has a conception of itself as a continuing subject of
experiences. This requires
self-consciousness.
The basic idea behind this is
that the difference between a person and a non-person is self-awareness, which
includes awareness of one’s desires. If it is impossible for you to desire
something, then you cannot be said to have a right to it, for example, if a child
or mentally ill person cannot understand anything about politics then it seems
wrong to say that they ought to have a right to vote. You have to be self-aware
in order to desire your continued existence because self-awareness means being
aware that you are alive in the here and now, that you have a history, and that
you have a potential future. Since foetuses are not aware in this way it
follows that they cannot have a right to life, thus justifying abortion. In the
views of some people there is nothing wrong with abortion at all, it is no
worse than removing useless tissue.
However, this leaves us with a serious problem, the problem of marginal
cases: there are many human beings who are not self-conscious in this way
including those in comas, the severely mentally handicapped, those with
advanced dementia, and young children. Young children are not self-aware
in this manner until they are at least one or two year old. It seems,
therefore, that if a foetus is not a person and can be killed without
reservation, then it must also be acceptable to kill infants of up to two years
old. This is called infanticide, and
whilst it is common in many cultures it is rejected as monstrously immoral in
Western culture. The Liberal position therefore seems untenable, killing unborn
children can only be accepted if we also accept the killing of infants, which
seemingly we cannot.
Next Tooley analyses the
Conservative (Pro Life) position. According to this position the unborn child
is already a person from conception, and therefore abortion is the murder of an
innocent person who possesses a right to life. However, Tooley finds it
unconvincing to argue that a zygote or embryo could possibly be considered a
person and given full rights, especially when animals such as dogs or
chimpanzees (who have brains and can feel pain etc.) are not considered to be
persons and are not accorded a right to life. Tooley considers that since a zygote, embryo, or foetus is clearly
not a ‘person’ yet those with a Conservative view will often turn to the Potentiality
Principle to justify their case against abortion, which Tooley describes
thusly:
If property P
endows a thing with a right to life, and X has the potential to develop
property P, then X has the right not to be denied its potential to develop P.
The Potentiality Principle basically says that personhood is needed to
have a right to life, but that whilst a foetus does not have this vital
property, since it will develop self-consciousness (etc.) we ought to leave it
alone to develop and treat it as if it already has a right to life. However,
Tooley argues that this position is untenable. This is like saying that
because a trainee chef has the potential to become a head chef in several
years’ time, we should already give him the pay and conditions of a head chef.
Or again, it is like saying that because a five year old has the potential to
one day go to university, we should already give him a degree.
In summary, then, the Pro Choice
or ‘Liberal’ position on abortion can only be accepted if we also accept that
it is ok to kill babies. Meanwhile, the Pro Life or ‘Conservative’ position is
based on a flawed principle which makes little sense. This means that the issue
of abortion is a difficult dilemma to solve because both alternatives seem completely
untenable.
Judith Jarvis Thomson, In Defence
of Abortion
Judith Jarvis Thomson wrote an
article called In Defence of Abortion
in which she discusses the key philosophical issues attached to abortion.
Thomson states that in the typical anti-abortion argument the crucial premise
is a claim that the foetus is a fully human person right from the point of
conception, and therefore that the unborn child must not be terminated, even if
its life is against the wishes of the mother to be. She maintains that this is
false, and that it rests of fallacious reasoning (the slippery slope argument).
However, for the sake of argument she allows that the foetus might be a person.
It is her contention that classifying the foetus as a person does not settle
the debate as it may still be that abortion can be justified anyway.
Essentially Thomson is arguing
that even if the foetus is a person and has a right to life it does not
automatically follow that abortion cannot be allowed. Supposed rights often
clash; celebrities and public figures claim they have a right to privacy, but
newspapers would claim that the public have a right to know what these people
are up to. Here we have a rights clash and it is not always certain which side
to agree with. Thomson is arguing that we ought not to automatically side with
the rights of the foetus, it could be that the rights of the mother ‘trump’ those
of the foetus: she should have freedom to choose what happens to her own body
and her own life. Her body is like a life support for the foetus, and it will
die without her, but she has every right to unplug herself and to let the
foetus die.
One problem with Thomson’s
violinist thought experiment could well be that it is more analogous to rape
than an ordinary pregnancy, which is far more likely to be the result of failed
contraception, a drunken one night stand, or a sober fit of passion. In these
cases the sex is consensual. The example can be slightly modified, however;
imagine that the woman is aware that the Society of Music Lovers is on the
prowl for someone to hook up to the violinist but she decides to go out and
risk it anyway for the sake of seeing her friends and enjoying herself. This is
much more like the average case of accidental pregnancy. Men are free to enjoy
sex without the repercussion of getting pregnant, so why shouldn’t women also
be free to enjoy it without fear? It might be argued that a woman’s freedom of
choice over her body was exercised when she chose to have sex, and that she
knew the risks and should now have the baby. However, as far as Thomson is
concerned, her violinist analogy shows that every woman has the right to do what
she wishes with her body.
Christian Views
Many of the people who campaign
against abortion are religious, so no report about the morality of abortion
would be complete without looking at religious views on the debate. The Bible
does not mention abortion at all, however, it gives various teachings which can
be applied to abortion and which strongly suggest that abortion is wrong.
Firstly it states in Genesis that “God made man in his own image” (Genesis
1:27) which suggests that each person is special and that life is sacred and
not to be destroyed. Meanwhile, Psalm 139 states “you created my innermost
being: you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am
fearfully and wonderfully made… All the days ordained for me were written in
your book before one of the came to be.” This strongly suggests that each
individual person is a creation of God, and it seems obvious that to destroy
something which has been created by God is wrong. The passage also indicates
that each person is unique and that God has a plan for each person’s life, so
that abortion would be interfering with God’s plans for our world. The idea
that God creates each person is also important when thinking about abortion of
disabled foetuses, because according to these passages God has plans for these
people too, and they also are special and made in God’s image.
Christians have traditionally
opposed abortion, with Christian writings as early as the 4th
century declaring that any measures taken to kill an unborn child were sinful.
John Calvin wrote in the 16th century that abortion was more
horrible than killing a man in his own house. Today the Roman Catholic Church
still considers all abortions to be totally morally wrong, and it is not
permitted even in cases when the mother would die from the pregnancy. This is
an absolutist view. Cardinal Keith O’Brian said the following on the subject:
“We are killing in our country [Scotland] the equivalent of a classroom of kids
every single day. Can you imagine that? Two Dunblane massacres a day in our
country going on and on. And when's it going to stop? I can't change the
teachings of Jesus Christ. I can't change the 10 Commandments. That's what I'm
ordained to teach and to preach: Thou shalt not kill.”
Meanwhile, the Church of England
and some other Protestant groups believe that a relativist approach must be
taken. Yes the foetus should be viewed as important and as a creation of God,
but we should also take in to consideration the life and needs of the
prospective mother and her family. If a woman will die from the pregnancy then
it is surely ridiculous to forbid abortion based on the idea that life is
sacred. Similarly, Jesus taught that Christians should try to love people and
alleviate their suffering, and in many cases this might mean freeing a woman
from the burden of motherhood that lies ahead of her: “The Church of England
combines strong opposition to abortion with a recognition that there can be –
strictly limited – conditions under which it may be morally preferable to any
available alternative.”
Gender Issues: Men Vs. Women
It can be argued that one of the
central issues in the abortion debate is that of gender, in particular, who has
the power and control. It can also be argued that men and women often think in
very different ways and that this makes them perceive the issue differently.
Throughout history women have
been subordinated to men; they have been denied rights, the vote, education,
and various other freedoms. In many ways women have been treated like property,
or like they are naturally there to serve the needs of men. For example, the
Protestant reformer Martin Luther (16th century) said that women
should look after the house and give birth to children, and that if a woman dies
in child birth it does not matter because that’s what she is there for. Feminists are those who believe that
women should be equal to men, and for many feminists access to contraception
and abortion are crucial to the freedom and empowerment that they seek. After
all, men do not have to suffer the burden of carrying a child, and it is
generally the women who end up as primary carers for their children. Pregnancy
can often be very painful and even leave permanent damage. Many women love
being mothers, but not all of them want to be, and so women should have the
freedom to choose, rather than being simply seen as machines to produce
children.
Father’s rights
Suppose that a woman gets
pregnant and that she does not wish to have the child, but that the father
desperately wants the child, and that he is willing to care for the mother
throughout the pregnancy and to raise the child by himself. Under UK laws he
has no right whatsoever to stop the woman from having an abortion if she so
chooses. He may try to persuade her not to have an abortion, but it is entirely
the choice of the mother what will happen, fathers literally have no power
here. In the USA there have been occasions when a court has ruled that an
abortion should be delayed in order to give the potential father more time to
discuss the issue with the pregnant woman, but it has never stopped women from
aborting.
Many men feel that they deserve
some kind of say in what happens to the unborn child that they have helped to
create, however, it is difficult to see how their wishes could ever be taken in
to account when they differ from those of the mother, after all, it is her body
which will have to house and give birth to the child, surely she should have
the greater half of the say? Some would argue that there are double standards
being portrayed here; if a man desperately wants the child a woman can legally
deprive him of it, and yet if he does not want the child she can not only force
it upon him, but also he is legally obliged to support his unwanted offspring.
As Armin Brott put it: “a woman can legally deprive a man of his right ot
become a parent, or force him to become one against his will.”
Carol Gilligan: The Ethics of Care
In her book In A Different Voice, Carol Gilligan discussed the issues raised by
abortion based on her discussions with 27 women considering abortions. Traditional ethical approaches to
abortion tend to talk in the language or rights and principles, or in terms of
abstract concepts like utility, but according to Carol Gilligan these
considerations are out of touch with the moral reasonings of actual women who
are considering abortions. For many women in this position the decision is all about
what impact having an abortion or not having an abortion will have on their own
lives and on the lives of the people around them. They will think about how
keeping the child will affect their daily life, their relationships with their
family and friends, and in particular how it will affect the lives of their
partners and existing children. They will think about the effect that having an
abortion will have on their own long term happiness, whether they will feel
guilty or not, and what it will mean for their relationship with their partner;
some men want children and will walk out on their partners if they fail to
provide, whereas in many cases men walk out on their partners shortly after
having children because it changes the whole nature of a relationship. What
Gilligan is talking about here is what we could term an ‘Ethics of Care’
because it is not concerned with principles and justice, but instead it is
concerned with feelings and relationships. Gilliagan argues that men tend to
think in terms of principles and utility, but if we want to properly understand
and engage with the abortion debate we have to look at actual women’s
perspectives.
Abortion and discrimination against the disabled
Firstly, it seems to suggest that
life as a disabled person is of less value than life as an able bodied or
‘normal’ person, and therefore that disabled people are not as valuable as
those who are fully enabled. This is considered to be offensive by many
disabled people. If someone were to suggest that disabled people should all be
killed, for example, to save the government the money of caring for them, then
we would reject this as morally outrageous, but are we not doing something
similar in aborting the disabled?
Secondly it is often argued that
since life as a disabled person would be traumatic or filled with difficulties,
it would be better for the child not to be born at all – it is better to have
no life than a bad life. But disabled people refute this claim and say that
they would rather be alive and disabled than not be alive at all, and they
would also claim that they are perfectly capable of having happy and fulfilling
lives. Therefore, aborting the disabled is making decisions on behalf of the
disabled child which are not the right of the parents to make, and which are
based on a faulty point of view.
A further argument against
aborting the disabled is that doing so would be an example of eugenics, which means it is an attempt
to ‘better’ the human race by rooting out undesirable genes. Eugenics is a
Greek word which actually means ‘good breeding’ and it is something we have
been doing to animals and plants for centuries, making sure that some get to
breed whilst others do not. This is how we have managed to create new breeds of
dog and varieties of tulips and roses. However, doing this with human beings is
extremely controversial as it openly shows the belief that some people are
better than others, it is a rejection of equality and the view that every life
matters.
Another problem with allowing the
abortion of disabled foetuses is that it is difficult to decide what counts as
a severe disability, for example, there have been instanced of prospective
parents aborting children who would have been born with a cleft palate. This
can mean that the baby has a disjointed upper lip and that the roof of their
mouth does not properly develop leaving a gap into the nasal cavity, however,
this problem can be quite simply resolved by a minor operation which only
leaves a small scar, the only other problem being that the person might have a
slight lisp. Joanna Jepson was training to be an Anglican priest when she heard
that a woman had aborted her unborn child for this reason, and having had the
problem
herself she was outraged at this and
reported it to the police as an example of an illegal and unjustified abortion.
Jepson declared “to take away lives for that reason is completely abhorrent.
Having been in that position myself, is society saying I should have died?” Her
complain was not upheld and no charges were brought against the doctors.
However, there are those who
would argue that we can justify the aborting of disabled foetuses, and that
this does not just have to mean discrimination. Abortion is allowed on grounds
of psychological trauma to the mother or family; some parents may not wish for
the hard work and stress that can be involved with raising a disabled child. Raising
a disabled child can be extremely difficult, as well as being much more
expensive. In some cases the life of the child will be very short, leading to
heartbreak for the parents, whilst in other cases the parents will have to care
for the child for their entire life, as the child will never be independent.
Therefore, it might be argued that aborting a disabled foetus can be allowed on
the grounds that it will protect the mother or family from numerous
psychological traumas.
Another argument would be out of
choice: when parents choose to have a baby they have certain preconceptions
about their children. They may have dreams of playing sports with their kids,
teaching them to read and write and paint, seeing them grow up and achieve
highly at school or university, and one day see them move away and start their
own families. When it is discovered that the child will be disabled suddenly
all of these dreams are smashed. The analogy is distasteful perhaps, but in
some ways having a disabled child could be likened to being given a fish for
Christmas when what you really wanted was a dog. When the reason for wanting a
child is removed, why still have that child? Of course, this kind of reasoning
could also justify abortion on grounds of gender, something which is illegal
and which many people do indeed view as discriminatory and wrong; is there
really a difference?
Final Thoughts
There is no simple answer to the
abortion debate, not least because there are so many grey areas and contrasting
principles, however, it is clear that it is an important issue which rouses
strong feelings. Should abortion be allowed always, often, rarely, or never?
And even if it is wrong, does the government have the right to control or
prohibit it? These are the issues you will have to try and solve when forming
your opinion on abortion.
No comments:
Post a Comment