Abortion Is Wrong To Kill A Fetus
The abortion debate deals with the rights and wrongs of deliberately ending a pregnancy before normal childbirth, therefore, killing the fetus in the process. Abortion is a controversial topic for both men and women who find themselves facing the moral dilemma of whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. Abortion is one of the most polarizing issues because most people are on one side or the other and very few are undecided. Abortions have been around for thousands of years. However, in the 1800s, abortions in the United States were illegal. Due to the lack of medical education, procedures and surgeries, abortions were very dangerous. As medical advancements were made, women still had to rely on back alley abortions which usually resulted in
…show more content…
the harm of thousands of women. Abortions remained illegal, despite the medical advancements. It was not until 1973 that abortions were made legal in the United States due to a Supreme Court decision in Roe Vs Wade.
40 years ago, in the landmark case of Roe V. Wade, the Supreme Court decided that abortion should be legal in the United States (Easterbrook 2014). Decades after the Roe Vs. Wade, the abortion debate still remains dividing. Ever since the court decision of Roe V. Wade in 1973, abortion has been one of the most dividing issues in our society. On one hand are pro-life supporters who argue that the fetus has the same status as the human adult including right to life from the moment of conception. On the other hand, are individuals who are pro-choice supporters, who argue that the fetus does not have a right to life because they believe a woman should have the right to choose what is right for her and her situation. They argue that the right to life is acquired sometime after birth, therefore, killing a fetus is not killing a human being. Both sides look at autonomy and property rights when arguing for their position (Easterbrook 2014). This paper will analyze both sides of the argument.
Pro-choice
While the debate of abortion has two very distinct sides, there are individuals who lie on the pro-choice spectrum but describe themselves as “moderates”. They argue that abortion should be legal until a certain point in the pregnancy where it should be made illegal (Easterbrook 2014). Due to the fact that society uses the cessation of brain activity to define when life ends, it should be fair to use the onset of brain activity to define when life starts (Easterbrook 2014). The debate about when brain activity starts is controversial, however, moderate pro-choice supporters argue that during the third trimester is when babies display complex brain activity (Easterbrook 2014). EEGs show that during the third trimester, babies display complex brain activity similar to that of newborns. Moderates of pro-choice argue that while the woman can have autonomy, the availability should be limited to the third trimester due to the onset of brain activity which we use to determine the onset of life (Easterbrook 2014).
The core of the pro-choice argument is that to determine the personhood of a fetus, its genetic makeup should not be used. They argue that a fetus is not a person/human being because “personhood requires at least some of a number of characteristics like self-awareness, the ability to reason and ability to communicate which a fetus has none, therefore, the fetus is not a person” (English 2014). It is not human in a human sense therefore it doesn’t have a life. For pro-choice supporters, the most important thing is granting a woman autonomy over her body since the pregnant woman owns her body. The pregnant woman cannot conceive without wanting to. The fetus, in a way, has a contract with the woman for the use of her womb for 9 months. The woman should have a say in it; if she would like the fetus to stay or not, due to the fact that one is not “morally” entitled to one’s property (Feinberg 2014). The woman in whose uterus the fetus abides has needs and interests and if they conflict with bringing the fetus to term, she has the right to say no to the contract of 9 months of letting a fetus stay in her uterus (Feinberg 2014).
Another argument for pro-choice is the fact that the human fetus, even though it falls short of moral personhood, it is no more than a temporary parasitic growth (Gibson 2012). “A fetus is not a constituent organ of the mother like for example her lungs but rather, an entity which will presently be dependent then will become independent (Gibson 2012)”. It is still plausible to claim that the fetus is in a way characterized as property of the woman like a watch therefore, she can do whatever she would like with her property (Gibson 2012). Pro-choice supporters compare the forcing of women to carry to term to the burglar analogy. One night the room is very stuffy and a woman decides to open the window to air it out. A burglar climbs in through the open window. Even though she is partially responsible for the burglar’s presence, because she voluntarily did something that enabled him to get in with full knowledge that it might have happened, it is absurd to say that the burglar should stay because she gave him a right to use her house (Kaczor 2014). Without being invited in, trespassers whether guilty or innocent may be forcefully expelled from the house because they have no right to use the owner’s property (Kaczor 2014). In the analogy, the fetus is the burglar who does not have a right to stay in the woman’s house(uterus) without her permission and can be expelled if the woman does not want the burglar/fetus in her property.
Pro-life
Opinions, views and emotions run high and passion is their fuel. Pro-life supporters argue that there is no middle ground and human life begins at the moment of conception. Pro-life supporters argue that every person has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt that the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body; everyone would grant that (Kaczor 2014). But surely a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. The fetus has the same rights as the human adult including the right to life from the moment of conception (Kaczor 2014). They argue that having respect to one’s right to life is a necessary condition for the possibility of enjoying all other rights. To undermine one’s rights to life is to undermine all their rights (Kaczor 2014). One of the things that shapes these views is religion. However, some supporters who are not religious still argue that abortion is wrong and it is still murder.
Religion is a vessel that helps shape people views on important issues. In the issue of abortion, religion opposes it because it is the killing of an innocent human being which is morally wrong (Harris 2005). The Catholic church for example, claims that human beings are born with a soul. We all have souls, therefore, killing a fetus is killing an ensouled being which is wrong. What time we become ensouled is unclear but the Catholic church argues that it is between conception and before birth (Harris 2005). Therefore, individuals should act cautiously and presume that there might be ensoulment from conception. Abortion of fetuses should be treated as the killing of an ensouled being which is absolutely wrong.
For pro-life supporters, what matters most is the potential of the fetus.
The fetus’s potential of what it will be in the future (Lee 2015). Killing a fetus is killing an adult human being due to the potential of what it could be. According to this logic, killing an adult human being is wrong, therefore, it is wrong to kill a fetus. Killing an innocent person because their existence in the world would make the killer’s life miserable is homicide and can’t be justified (Lee 2015). A proposed way to look at it is, to kill our boss because he makes your life miserable and intolerable and you can’t find another job is not a justified reason to kill your boss(Lee 2015). In this example, your boss is the fetus and just because the fetus will make your life intolerable is not grounds for having an abortion (Lee 2015). To abort a fetus is the loss of that person’s future, specifically, all the value of that future. A fetus can be said to have a future and potential therefore, killing a fetus is wrong. It is just as bad as killing an adult human being which is illegal (Marquis 2014).
A famous analogy used by both sides of the argument is the violinist analogy. The violinist analogy raises the question of whether all abortions are unjust killing. A famous violinist has been found to have a fatal kidney disease, and the Society of Music Lovers has found that, out of everyone in the world, you are one with the right blood type, therefore, they kidnap you and the violinist circulatory system …show more content…
is hooked to yours (Thomson, 2014). The only way the violinist can survive is if he is hooked to you for 9 months and he will die if you sever the tubes connecting the two of you (Thomson 2014).
In this analogy, the pro-life supporters argue that the right to life is a right not to be killed. The person hooked to the violinist can cut the ties to the violinist because he is not entitled to the extraordinary life-saving measures. However, the person saving his life may not stab the violinist in the heart. The person can only sever the tubes. If the person stabs him, they are violating his dignity because he has a right not to be killed. Pro-life supporters argue that this scenario, resembles closely to abortion where the fetus is ripped to death in the womb then only to be removed (Noonan 2014). The pro-choice supporters argue that the Music Lovers’ Association violated your rights and you have every right to sever the tubes from the violinist you are connected to. The pro-choice argument sees pregnancy as a burden if unwanted and the woman has every right to terminate it if it goes against her interests (Warren 2014).
Conclusion
The reason abortion is a very polarizing issue, is due to the psychological effect of group polarization.
Group polarization is the tendency for individuals to form and make decisions that are more extreme than they would in individual situations. For instance, if a number of individuals who support abortion sat down and discussed their perspectives, at the end of the discussion each person would have a stronger, more extreme opinion of why abortion is acceptable. As individuals who support the procedure will typically support their arguments with points such as “the woman should have autonomy over her body,” “a fetus is not yet a child,” etc. Because they all agree on these ideas already, it is not likely that they will discuss that some individuals consider a fetus to be a child, in fact, they may purposefully avoid this point in order to come to a conclusion more easily. In order to advance as a society on the issue of abortion, we need to see and accept other people’s views and opinions and not just our own, so we can come to a middle ground agreement about the polarizing
issue.
All in all, abortion is a topic where most people agree to disagree and maybe allow some imprecision. Although it's uncomfortable to be imprecise, the right answer may lie in accepting that there are degrees of right to life, and the fetus gets a stronger right to life as it develops. This answer has the value of reflecting the way numerous people feel about abortion. Most pro-life supporters would agree that the more developed the fetus, the unhappier they are about aborting it, and the more weight they give the rights of the fetus in comparison with the rights of the mother.
In conclusion, prior to 1973, abortion was illegal and were only allowed legally as an option only when the mother’s life was in danger. However, the Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe vs. Wade case changed all this. Roe v. Wade provoked a national dividing debate that continues today about issue of abortion including whether, and to what extent, abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, and what the role should be of religious and moral views in the political sphere. Roe v. Wade reshaped national politics, dividing much of the United States into pro-choice and pro-life sides, while activating movements on both sides.
the harm of thousands of women. Abortions remained illegal, despite the medical advancements. It was not until 1973 that abortions were made legal in the United States due to a Supreme Court decision in Roe Vs Wade.
40 years ago, in the landmark case of Roe V. Wade, the Supreme Court decided that abortion should be legal in the United States (Easterbrook 2014). Decades after the Roe Vs. Wade, the abortion debate still remains dividing. Ever since the court decision of Roe V. Wade in 1973, abortion has been one of the most dividing issues in our society. On one hand are pro-life supporters who argue that the fetus has the same status as the human adult including right to life from the moment of conception. On the other hand, are individuals who are pro-choice supporters, who argue that the fetus does not have a right to life because they believe a woman should have the right to choose what is right for her and her situation. They argue that the right to life is acquired sometime after birth, therefore, killing a fetus is not killing a human being. Both sides look at autonomy and property rights when arguing for their position (Easterbrook 2014). This paper will analyze both sides of the argument.
Pro-choice
While the debate of abortion has two very distinct sides, there are individuals who lie on the pro-choice spectrum but describe themselves as “moderates”. They argue that abortion should be legal until a certain point in the pregnancy where it should be made illegal (Easterbrook 2014). Due to the fact that society uses the cessation of brain activity to define when life ends, it should be fair to use the onset of brain activity to define when life starts (Easterbrook 2014). The debate about when brain activity starts is controversial, however, moderate pro-choice supporters argue that during the third trimester is when babies display complex brain activity (Easterbrook 2014). EEGs show that during the third trimester, babies display complex brain activity similar to that of newborns. Moderates of pro-choice argue that while the woman can have autonomy, the availability should be limited to the third trimester due to the onset of brain activity which we use to determine the onset of life (Easterbrook 2014).
The core of the pro-choice argument is that to determine the personhood of a fetus, its genetic makeup should not be used. They argue that a fetus is not a person/human being because “personhood requires at least some of a number of characteristics like self-awareness, the ability to reason and ability to communicate which a fetus has none, therefore, the fetus is not a person” (English 2014). It is not human in a human sense therefore it doesn’t have a life. For pro-choice supporters, the most important thing is granting a woman autonomy over her body since the pregnant woman owns her body. The pregnant woman cannot conceive without wanting to. The fetus, in a way, has a contract with the woman for the use of her womb for 9 months. The woman should have a say in it; if she would like the fetus to stay or not, due to the fact that one is not “morally” entitled to one’s property (Feinberg 2014). The woman in whose uterus the fetus abides has needs and interests and if they conflict with bringing the fetus to term, she has the right to say no to the contract of 9 months of letting a fetus stay in her uterus (Feinberg 2014).
Another argument for pro-choice is the fact that the human fetus, even though it falls short of moral personhood, it is no more than a temporary parasitic growth (Gibson 2012). “A fetus is not a constituent organ of the mother like for example her lungs but rather, an entity which will presently be dependent then will become independent (Gibson 2012)”. It is still plausible to claim that the fetus is in a way characterized as property of the woman like a watch therefore, she can do whatever she would like with her property (Gibson 2012). Pro-choice supporters compare the forcing of women to carry to term to the burglar analogy. One night the room is very stuffy and a woman decides to open the window to air it out. A burglar climbs in through the open window. Even though she is partially responsible for the burglar’s presence, because she voluntarily did something that enabled him to get in with full knowledge that it might have happened, it is absurd to say that the burglar should stay because she gave him a right to use her house (Kaczor 2014). Without being invited in, trespassers whether guilty or innocent may be forcefully expelled from the house because they have no right to use the owner’s property (Kaczor 2014). In the analogy, the fetus is the burglar who does not have a right to stay in the woman’s house(uterus) without her permission and can be expelled if the woman does not want the burglar/fetus in her property.
Pro-life
Opinions, views and emotions run high and passion is their fuel. Pro-life supporters argue that there is no middle ground and human life begins at the moment of conception. Pro-life supporters argue that every person has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt that the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body; everyone would grant that (Kaczor 2014). But surely a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. The fetus has the same rights as the human adult including the right to life from the moment of conception (Kaczor 2014). They argue that having respect to one’s right to life is a necessary condition for the possibility of enjoying all other rights. To undermine one’s rights to life is to undermine all their rights (Kaczor 2014). One of the things that shapes these views is religion. However, some supporters who are not religious still argue that abortion is wrong and it is still murder.
Religion is a vessel that helps shape people views on important issues. In the issue of abortion, religion opposes it because it is the killing of an innocent human being which is morally wrong (Harris 2005). The Catholic church for example, claims that human beings are born with a soul. We all have souls, therefore, killing a fetus is killing an ensouled being which is wrong. What time we become ensouled is unclear but the Catholic church argues that it is between conception and before birth (Harris 2005). Therefore, individuals should act cautiously and presume that there might be ensoulment from conception. Abortion of fetuses should be treated as the killing of an ensouled being which is absolutely wrong.
For pro-life supporters, what matters most is the potential of the fetus.
The fetus’s potential of what it will be in the future (Lee 2015). Killing a fetus is killing an adult human being due to the potential of what it could be. According to this logic, killing an adult human being is wrong, therefore, it is wrong to kill a fetus. Killing an innocent person because their existence in the world would make the killer’s life miserable is homicide and can’t be justified (Lee 2015). A proposed way to look at it is, to kill our boss because he makes your life miserable and intolerable and you can’t find another job is not a justified reason to kill your boss(Lee 2015). In this example, your boss is the fetus and just because the fetus will make your life intolerable is not grounds for having an abortion (Lee 2015). To abort a fetus is the loss of that person’s future, specifically, all the value of that future. A fetus can be said to have a future and potential therefore, killing a fetus is wrong. It is just as bad as killing an adult human being which is illegal (Marquis 2014).
A famous analogy used by both sides of the argument is the violinist analogy. The violinist analogy raises the question of whether all abortions are unjust killing. A famous violinist has been found to have a fatal kidney disease, and the Society of Music Lovers has found that, out of everyone in the world, you are one with the right blood type, therefore, they kidnap you and the violinist circulatory system …show more content…
is hooked to yours (Thomson, 2014). The only way the violinist can survive is if he is hooked to you for 9 months and he will die if you sever the tubes connecting the two of you (Thomson 2014).
In this analogy, the pro-life supporters argue that the right to life is a right not to be killed. The person hooked to the violinist can cut the ties to the violinist because he is not entitled to the extraordinary life-saving measures. However, the person saving his life may not stab the violinist in the heart. The person can only sever the tubes. If the person stabs him, they are violating his dignity because he has a right not to be killed. Pro-life supporters argue that this scenario, resembles closely to abortion where the fetus is ripped to death in the womb then only to be removed (Noonan 2014). The pro-choice supporters argue that the Music Lovers’ Association violated your rights and you have every right to sever the tubes from the violinist you are connected to. The pro-choice argument sees pregnancy as a burden if unwanted and the woman has every right to terminate it if it goes against her interests (Warren 2014).
Conclusion
The reason abortion is a very polarizing issue, is due to the psychological effect of group polarization.
Group polarization is the tendency for individuals to form and make decisions that are more extreme than they would in individual situations. For instance, if a number of individuals who support abortion sat down and discussed their perspectives, at the end of the discussion each person would have a stronger, more extreme opinion of why abortion is acceptable. As individuals who support the procedure will typically support their arguments with points such as “the woman should have autonomy over her body,” “a fetus is not yet a child,” etc. Because they all agree on these ideas already, it is not likely that they will discuss that some individuals consider a fetus to be a child, in fact, they may purposefully avoid this point in order to come to a conclusion more easily. In order to advance as a society on the issue of abortion, we need to see and accept other people’s views and opinions and not just our own, so we can come to a middle ground agreement about the polarizing
issue.
All in all, abortion is a topic where most people agree to disagree and maybe allow some imprecision. Although it's uncomfortable to be imprecise, the right answer may lie in accepting that there are degrees of right to life, and the fetus gets a stronger right to life as it develops. This answer has the value of reflecting the way numerous people feel about abortion. Most pro-life supporters would agree that the more developed the fetus, the unhappier they are about aborting it, and the more weight they give the rights of the fetus in comparison with the rights of the mother.
In conclusion, prior to 1973, abortion was illegal and were only allowed legally as an option only when the mother’s life was in danger. However, the Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe vs. Wade case changed all this. Roe v. Wade provoked a national dividing debate that continues today about issue of abortion including whether, and to what extent, abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, and what the role should be of religious and moral views in the political sphere. Roe v. Wade reshaped national politics, dividing much of the United States into pro-choice and pro-life sides, while activating movements on both sides.