Abortion Essay, Research Paper

There are few issues that can cause as many heated and sometimes, irrational, debates than that of abortion. The issue strikes at the very heart of an individual’s religious and philosophical beliefs. Does a woman have the right to terminate a pregnancy? Is it moral to do so in any circumstance? Is a fetus a living human being? The debate has raged for nearly thirty years and there does not seem to be any end to the controversy that often results in violence. Irrational individuals who have committed murder want to make their beliefs heard and followed.

In response to the question, some people have resulted to using qualifiers: “no, abortion is not moral except if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest” is one response heard, in fact, some state laws contain this condition. A very large and strong contingent of people say a very loud and aggressive “no, abortion is not moral, not under any circumstance” and at least as many say a very loud aggressive “yes, abortion is moral; it is the woman’s choice regarding her own body.” The issue of abortion is filled with emotion.

Despite the eloquent arguments and the seemingly reasonable reasons supporting abortion, abortion is not moral. It is taking the life of a living being and that can never be considered a moral act. There is more and more support for this opinion. As the Roe v Wade decision reached its 25th anniversary, in fact, there was a growing sentiment in this country that abortion is murder. Perhaps this swell of support against abortion is due to the realization that legal abortion has prohibited 35 million humans from being born (First Things, 1998).

In her article, A Defense of Abortion, Judith Jarvis Thomson offered a number of reasons to support abortion. She also used a number of analogies to support her opinions. Thomson conceded the point that opponents of abortion make: a fetus is a person from the moment of conception but she said that abortion is morally permissible even it means killing the fetus and offered a number of analogies and/or hypothetical situations to demonstrate her point. Some of her analogies border on the absurd such as attempting to compare a young boy who does not want to share his box of candy with his younger brother to a pregnant woman who does not want to share her body with this unwanted fetus. It is simply not a rational comparison. Equally absurd would be to counterargue that the little brother is already living, the aborted fetus has not been given the opportunity to live.

Ronald Dworkin argued that the law should not call abortion murder. For him, this is a First Amendment issue that deals with the separation of church and state. Dworkin’s rationale focused on the fact that most religions do not agree on when life actually begins – at conception, as a four-month fetus or at birth. He alleged that abortion was a religious decision and as such should not be restricted by the law. Pope John Paul II, on the other hand, left no question about abortion in the Catholic Church. The Pope has often argued vigorously that abortion is murder and condemns laws that permit abortion as being “intrinsically unjust,” “lacking in authentic juridical validity,” and not being “morally binding” (Thomson, 1996; p. htm).

Dworkin said that there should be an agreement on the sanctity of life, that there is an intrinsic value of life regardless of how it was conceived. But, Dworkin also promotes a “metric of disrespect” which allows him to distinguish between “better” and “worse” abortions and to justify some of the most accepted exceptions to a moral objection to abortion, such as in the cases of incest and rape. In other words, Dworkin does not take a legal stand. He does, however, take a religious stand and bases his arguments from that point of view. He also allows himself a comfortable escape from addressing the morality of abortion by giving exceptions — his metric of disrespect which one could also call his line of tolerance. It is like a space within which the morality of abortion has no place. If it is a case of rape or incest, abortion is a moral act, otherwise, it is not a moral act. How can an act be moral sometimes and not other times?

The fact is that the entire pro-abortion argument has consistently been based on lies. This is especially when the medical needs of aborting have been used as the basis for aborting a fetus. Supporters consistently use euphemisms such as terminating a pregnancy which is dishonest. They also say that the fetus is only a ‘potential’ human being as if this fetus might be born as something other than a human being. They argue that the decision concerning abortion should be between the woman and her doctor but they fail to point out that in the greater majority of cases, the woman has never met the doctor who will perform the abortion until the time of the procedure.

Even in the very beginning of the legal controversy, the supporters of Roe v Wade argued were misled; they believed legal abortion would result in fewer unwanted children born, there would be fewer children living in poverty, and there would be less child-abuse. None of these predictions has materialized. It only takes reading the daily newspaper to show these arguments were empty wishes or hopes. In reality, the opposite has happened. The numbers of children abused and neglected is increasing exponentially. The number of children living in poverty grows every day. Based on these two facts, the number of unwanted children being born has not been reduced proportionately with the population growth, it has increased.

In fact, the issue of abortion has become even more horrible. Today, there is a procedure called partial birth which simply means that the fetus is a human being and there can be no doubt about this. It is clear and plain murder.

Technology continues to advance at great speed. There may well soon be a way to take the fetus live from the mother’s womb, place that fetus in an artificial womb and have it grow to infant-hood. Where will the pro- and anti-abortionists stand on this issue? Will this act be moral? The fetus will not be killed; it will live and grow. This will still not make the act moral. The fetus may continue to live but it is denied the nutrients and nurturance of its biological mother. This would surely have a negative effect on the mental and psychological growth of the infant, if not his or her physical growth. The fetus inside its mother’s womb gains a lot more than just the chemicals and nutrients it needs to grow and develop; there is an emotional bond that occurs even when the pregnant woman does not want the child. If and when this technology becomes available, we will have entered a terrible science fiction movie, one in which there are even fewer morals than exist today. This hypothesis, in fact, reminds this writer of the analogy Thomson used of the famous violin player taking the kidney functions of a kidnapped and unwilling donor. This fetus will be taken unwillingly from its host, kidnapped and taken from the warmth of its natural womb only to be placed in an artificial environment. If life begins at conception, which even Thomson concedes, then that life has a right to say what should happen to it. Since it is not capable of defending itself, others must help; it is like fighting for the underdog. The fetus is the underdog that must be protected against all forms of damage and ultimately death.

Bibliography

Cornell, Professor Drucilla. “Abortion.” Boston Review Forum, (1996): at http://www-polisci.mit.edu/BostonReview/BR20.4/Cornell.html

Dworkin, Ronald. Life’s Dominion (New York: Vintage Books 1994).

Fung, Archon. “Making Rights Real: Roe’s Impact on Abortion Access.” Politics and Society, (1993): v21, n4.

Pope John Paul II. The Gospel of Life [Evangelium Vitae]. (New York: Random House 1995).

Thomson, Judith Jarvis. “A Defense of Abortion.” In Social and Personal Ethics, ed. by William H. Shaw. (Wadsworth Publishing Company 1996).

Thomson, Judith Jarvis. “Abortion.” Boston Review, (1997): at http://www-polisci.mit.edu/BostonReview/BR20.3/thomson.html