Most moral issues in medical specialty and health care will incite lively argument. but no topic seems to inflame piques more than the inquiry of abortion. The gulf between pro-life and pro-choice can be an sturdy stance of profoundly held beliefs and rules. On the one manus. there is the claim that the fetus is a human being with the same right to life as any other human being. and abortion is hence nil less than slaying. On the other manus. it is argued that a adult female has a right to take what happens within her ain organic structure. and is hence justified in make up one’s minding to hold her fetus removed if she so wishes.

Even a broad position is debatable ; these tend to take the position that it is allowable for an abortion to take topographic point before a certain phase in the fetuss development. but non beyond that given point. Such an arbitrary position does look hard to quantify ; how can anyone find the standards that would voyage a determination that finds expiration acceptable today but morally condemnable tomorrow?

It is sometimes argued that the fetus reaches personhood good before birth. “By the ten percent hebdomad. for illustration. it already has a face. weaponries and legs. fingers and toes ; it has internal variety meats. and encephalon activity is noticeable. ” [ 1 ] But does this sabotage a woman’s right to self determination—can it still be sensible for her to take abortion. given its degree of development? We shall research this inquiry ; non from the position of whether the fetus is human. but from the premiss “that the woman’s rights over her organic structure are more of import than the life of the individual or portion individual in her uterus. ” [ 2 ]

A Woman’s Right to Self-Defence

Judith Jarvis Thomson presents the undermentioned hypothesis: [ 3 ] a adult female becomes pregnant and so learns that she has a cardiac status that will do her decease if the gestation continues. Let us allow the fetus personhood. with a right to life. Obviously the female parent excessively has a right to life. so how can we make up one’s mind who’s right to life is greater? A manner of replying this inquiry could be to state that an abortion is an act of aggression with the exclusive purpose to kill. Whereas to make nil would non be an effort by anyone to slay the female parent. instead to merely allow her dice.

The passiveness of the latter could be seen as morally preferred than straight killing an guiltless individual. Thomson argues that “It can non earnestly be said that…she must sit passively by and delay for her decease. ” [ 4 ] There are two people involved. both are guiltless. but one is jeopardizing the life of the other. Thomson believes that in this scenario a adult female is entitled to support herself against the menace posed by the unborn babe. even if finally this will do its decease.

I feel Thomson is right in her assessment. If an impartial opinion was sought by an person as to whose life has greater worth ; the fetus or the adult female. they might non experience able to choose—both lives could be seen to keep equal value. But there is nil nonsubjective about the woman’s situation—her life is endangered. If a individual threatens my life—even if they are non witting of their actions—I have a right to kill them. if that is the lone class of action I can take to drive the onslaught.

The scenario becomes less clear when we consider if a adult female holds the same right to support herself if the continuance of her gestation causes her serious wellness jobs that are non terminal. Again. I would measure the state of affairs in footings of an onslaught. Do I have a right to kill an attacker if he attempts to injure me? The reply. I think. is dependent upon degree—the hurt that would be inflicted. It seems sensible that the grade of revenge should be relative to the badness of the onslaught. Similarly. a adult female has the right to end her gestation if its continuance instigates a grade of unwellness that is terrible plenty to justify that determination.

The job so is quantifying such comparatives. It might look sensible to put up the adult female involved as the individual best qualified to do that determination. but shouldn’t such judgements emanate from an nonsubjective beginning? After all. should I be able to ‘take the jurisprudence into my ain hands’ and take whatever reprisal I thought necessary against my aggressor?

A Woman’s Right to Ownership

A adult female holds ownership of her ain organic structure ; therefore she may abort her fetus if that is what she chooses “it is in a really existent sense her own—to dispose of as she wishes. ” [ 5 ] Professor Thomson analogises: it is non that the adult female and fetus are like two renters busying a little house that has been erroneously rented to both of them—the female parent owns the house. [ 6 ] But non all claims of ownership hold an automatic right to dispose of their belongings. John Harris gives an illustration [ 7 ] suppose I own a life-saving drug. and have nil planned for its usage other than puting it on my shelf. If I meet a individual who was dependant on that drug otherwise they will decease. I would non be morally entitled to keep back the drug—it would be incorrect of me to exert that right.

What Harris is showing is that a adult female may hold the right to make what she wishes to her ain organic structure. but it would be incorrect of her to exert that right. The inquiry so is ; does the value of ownership of your organic structure take precedency over the value of the fetus? Property is sometimes commandeered during war. and this action is normally justified because national security is thought to take precedence over an individual’s right to ownership. [ 8 ] Another compelling. and I think decisive. statement comes from Mary Anne Warren. She states that ownership does non give me a right to kill an guiltless individual on my belongings. moreover. it is besides immoral to ostracize a individual from my belongings ; if by making so they will doubtless die. [ 9 ]

If one does non accept that a fetus is a human being. so the adult female may hold it removed from her organic structure. likewise to holding a kidney rock taken out. But if the fetus is believed to be a individual. so I do non believe any statement of ownership can keep up against the soundness of the given illustrations.

A Foetuses Right to its Mothers Body

Can a woman’s right to take abortion return precedence over the fetuss right to life? Professor Thomson argues that “…a right to life does non vouch
holding either a right to be given the usage of or a right to be allowed continued usage of another person’s body—even if one needs it for life. ” [ 10 ] Thomson goes on to give an illustration [ 11 ] . that if she was terminally ill. and the lone thing that would salvage her life was the touch of Henry Fonda’s cool manus on her fevered forehead. she would hold no right to anticipate him to go to her side and help her in this manner. No uncertainty. Thomson adds ; that it would be terribly nice of him. but she holds no right against him that he should make so.

An obvious unfavorable judgment is to reason that a adult female has a particular duty to her fetus. merely because she is its mother—a duty that ‘Henry Fonda’ does non owe. so the analogy. is rendered useless. But Thomson postulates that “we do non hold any such ‘special responsibility’ for a individual unless we have assumed it. explicitly or implicitly. ” [ 12 ] Thomson hence argues that if a gestation is unwanted. and the adult female holds no emotional bond to the fetus. there is no fond regard and so no duty. A possible difference to Thomson’s thought is to propose that the ‘special responsibility’ is bonded through cistrons instead so emotion. If a kid is born and the female parent wantonnesss it. her blameworthiness is held through their ‘mother and babe relationship’ instead so what the female parent ‘thinks’ of her babe.

Another statement that can give claim by the fetus to its mother’s organic structure is one of contract. [ 13 ] It could be said that by voluntarily prosecuting in sexual intercourse a woman—even if utilizing contraception—risks the opportunity of gestation. By understanding the possible effects of her actions. she must be seen as responsible for the being of the fetus. because no method of contraceptive method is known to be infallible. Since the adult female is accountable for conveying the fetus into the universe ( albeit in her uterus ) she assumes an duty to go on to supply nutriment for its endurance.

Michael Tooley offers an illustration that he believes analogises this statement [ 14 ] there is a enjoyable act that I pattern. But by prosecuting in it. it can hold the unfortunate hazard of destructing someone’s nutrient supply. This will non do the individual any job. every bit long as I continue to do such commissariats. even though it causes me huge problem and disbursal. Tooley says that he arranges things so that the chance of the ‘pleasurable act’ holding such an consequence is every bit little as possible ( contraceptive method ) . But he says that if things do travel incorrect. he is still responsible for the individual necessitating nutrient. and hence obligated to providing the nutrient needed. Tooley believes that one time we engage in an activity that can potentially make a kid. so we assume duty for its demands. even if conveying that kid into being was inadvertent and safeguards were taken to forestall that result.

Professor Thomson offers her ain powerful analogy in contrast to the above position:

If the room is airless. and I therefore unfastened a window to air it. and a burglar ascent in. it would be absurd to state. “Ah. now he can remain. she’s given him a right to the usage of her house—for she is partly responsible for his presence at that place. holding voluntarily done what enabled him to acquire in. in full cognition that there are such things as burglars. and that burglars burgle. ” It would be still more absurd to state this if I had had bars installed outside my Windowss. exactly to forestall burglars from acquiring in. and a burglar got in merely because of a defect in the bars. [ 15 ]

Abortion. Due to Rape

As already stated. most positions against abortion base their place from the value they place on the fetuss life. Even so. in the instance where gestation had occurred through colza. most oppositions of abortion would believe that there would be sufficient justification for expiration. Obviously. there is something self-contradictory about this—if the fetus is valuable because it is human. it is evidently no less human because its female parent had been raped. So how can some oppositions of abortion clasp such contradictory thoughts?

Janet Radcliffe Richards’ explains that when a adult female is forced to go on gestation until childbearing. “…the kid is being used as an instrument of penalty to the female parent. and that talk of the holiness of life is being used to mask the fact. ” [ 16 ] The lone thing that a adult female that wants to abort for grounds of inadvertent gestation has done otherwise. is to of engaged volitionally to sex—and that is what she is being punished for. [ 17 ]

Richards’ offers an interesting attack to the evident incompatibility stated. although I don’t happen its guess wholly converting. I think the ‘double-standards’ described. portray an person that holds merely a comparative sentiment to the value of life that is held by the fetus. That is. the fetus is human. with rights. but non as human and non every bit much rights as an grownup human being. And this is how I feel critics of abortion consider precedence to adult females in colza instances.

A Father’s Right

To what degree. if any. does the father’s sentiment count on whether his unborn kid should decease at the custodies of the female parent? After all. the fetus is really much a portion of him—sharing his familial makeup. It is noted by John Harris [ 18 ] that a adult male is non entitled to go against a adult female for the intent of infusing her—that is rape—so so it follows that he must non go against her by coercing his wants for a gestation to go on until birth. The counter statement is that by holding to sex. a adult female has tacitly agreed to transport the man’s kid.

Ultimately the woman’s sentiment must take precedence over the man’s—because she has to transport the fetus. but. one time a fetus is formed. one can hold a grade of understanding for the man’s state of affairs. If sexual intercourse had taken topographic point for the intent of impregnation. so why should the adult male suffer a feeling of loss merely because his spouse changes her head? Where contraceptive method is used. his statement may be weakened—they did non mean parentage. But if both were be aftering for a babe. is it fare that one time that kid exists. the female parent can take it off from its male parent. even though he has done no incorrect?

A Right to Death

If a gestation is terminated during its early phases. the fetus will doubtless decease. But if an abortion takes topographic point subsequently in gestation. and by some miracle survives. the female parent has no “right to procure the decease of the unborn kid. ” [ 19 ] If the babe was still unwanted. the “woman may be absolutely devastated by the idea of a kid. a spot of herself. set out for acceptance and ne’er seen or heard of again” [ 20 ] but she can merely demand her separation from it ; she may non order its executing.

I guess there would be few oppositions to this averment ; but it is interesting to understand why. If a individual accepts the permissibility of abortion. how is it so different to kill a kid that survives its attempted expiration? Presumably the fetus has acquired rights that it didn’t hold inside the uterus. or possibly the adult female loses her rights during that passage. It seems unusual that location should change the fetuss perspective so drastically—after all. it is the same being. It could be argued that it is independency that qualifies the fetus for its right to populate. When it no longer needs its female parent for endurance. and is non ‘reliant’ upon her in any manner. she loses the right to make up one’s mind its destiny.

Professor Thomson’s account is slightly different ; she excessively agrees that there is no justification for a adult female to order the decease of a fetus that lives following an abortion. but her logical thinking is non dependent upon any acquisition or loss of rights. Thomson argues that a expiration is merely the right for a adult female to detach the fetus from her organic structure. This is non an act of slaying ( even though its decease is inevitable during its babyhood ) but an entitlement to release. whatever its result. [ 21 ]

Professor Thomson presents an history that would be sensible if the act of abortion was strictly an effort of separation. But in fact the process used is an effort. non merely to detach and take the fetus. but to kill it. [ 22 ] If the abortionist fails in this undertaking. so Thomson allows the babe a right to populate. But as the method of expiration is designed for the fetus to decease. I believe it renders Thomson’s point unsound.

Decision

Professor Thomson concedes that “It would be indecorous in the adult female to bespeak an abortion. and indecent in a physician to execute it. if she is in her 7th month. and wants the abortion merely to avoid the nuisance of proroguing a trip abroad. ” [ 23 ] So. even steadfast suspects of feminist moralss feel compelled to see the fetuss involvements one time its development reaches a mature phase. It could be argued that the fetus has become a babe. and abortion is hence equivalent to infanticide.

I believe that anyone can exert their right to self-defense if their life is threatened. and a adult female can utilize her privilege against the unborn babe at any phase of its development without recrimination. However. I feel that a woman’s right to throw out her fetus for any other ground has merely comparative justification. Relative: because a woman’s rights to abort go less valid as the fetus develops.

There is. in my sentiment. a necessary correlativity between fetal development and a woman’s right to expiration. A adult female may exert her pick without via media during early gestation. because the fetus is nil more so possible. but justification becomes less toothsome as possible becomes actualised. Can a adult female truly keep the same rights to ‘choose what happens within her ain body’ when the fetus is 20 five hebdomads old. as she did when it was 10 hebdomads old?

As antecedently mentioned. randomly taking a point in the fetuss life and crying ‘before this point the thing is non a individual. after this point it is a individual. ’ does look contrived. But its comparing with ‘before this point a adult female can take. after this point she can’t ; does look vindicated against less satisfactory positions. The intent of this essay was to measure a instance for abortion that was non dependent on the fetuss right to life. but alternatively to appreciate a woman’s right to take. I don’t believe that either place can be considered without esteeming the rights of the other. Therefore. in my sentiment ; a adult female holds considerable rights ; but they are merely comparative to the fetuss degree of development.

Bibliography

Dwyer. Susan. The Problem of Abortion. London: Wadsworth
Printing Company. 1997

Glover. Jonathan. Causing Death and Saving Lives. London: Penguin Books. 1997

Harris. John. The Value of Life. London: Routledge. 1985

Info on Abortion “Abortion” . Wikipedia. the Free Encyclopaedia. hypertext transfer protocol: //en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Abortion # Other_means_of_ abortion

Richards. Janet. The Doubting Feminist. Harmondsworth: Pelican. 1982

Sherwin. Susan. No Longer Patient. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 1992

Thomson. Judith. “A Defence of Abortion” . Philosophy and Public Affairs. Vol. 1. No. 1. 1971: pp. 47-66

Tooley. Michael. Abortion and Infanticide. London: Oxford University Press. 1983

Warren. Marry Anne. “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion” . The Monist. 1973