Pros And Cons Of Abortion
Arguments in favor of the right to abortion
|[pic] |This section requires expansion. |
[edit] Bodily rights
An argument first presented by Judith Jarvis Thomson states that even if the fetus has a right to life, abortion is morally permissible because a woman has a right to control her own body. Thomson's variant of this argument draws an analogy between forcing a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy and forcing a person's body to be used as a dialysis machine for another person suffering from kidney failure. It is argued that just as it would be permissible to "unplug" and thereby cause the death of the person who is using one's …show more content…
kidneys, so it is permissible to abort the fetus (who similarly, it is said, has no right to use one's body against one's will).
Critics of this argument generally argue that there are morally relevant disanalogies between abortion and the kidney failure scenario.
For example, it is argued that the fetus is the woman's child as opposed to a mere stranger;[59] that abortion kills the fetus rather than merely letting it die;[60] and that in the case of pregnancy arising from voluntary intercourse, the woman has either tacitly consented to the fetus using her body,[61] or has a duty to allow it to use her body since she herself is responsible for its need to use her body.[62] Some writers defend the analogy against these objections, arguing that the disanalogies are morally irrelevant or do not apply to abortion in the way critics have …show more content…
claimed.[63]
Alternative scenarios have been put forth as more accurate and realistic representations of the moral issues present in abortion. John Noonan proposes the scenario of a family who was found to be liable for frostbite finger loss suffered by a dinner guest whom they refused to allow to stay overnight, although it was very cold outside and the guest showed signs of being sick. It is argued that just as it would not be permissible to refuse temporary accommodation for the guest to protect them from physical harm, it would not be permissible to refuse temporary accommodation of a fetus.[64]
Other critics claim that there is a difference between artificial and extraordinary means of preservation, such as medical treatment, kidney dialysis, and blood transfusions, and normal and natural means of preservation, such as gestation, childbirth, and breastfeeding. They argue that if a baby was born into an environment in which there was no replacement available for her mother's breast milk, and the baby would either breastfeed or starve, the mother would have to allow the baby to breastfeed. But the mother would never have to give the baby a blood transfusion, no matter what the circumstances were. The difference between breastfeeding in that scenario and blood transfusions is the difference between using your body as a kidney dialysis machine, and gestation and childbirth.[65][66][67][68][69][70]
[edit] Sexual emancipation and equality
Some argue that women's freedoms are limited until they can have the right to abortion on demand and to walk away from parenthood like men can. Governments that ban abortion arguably burden women with certain duties that men (who, too, are responsible for the pregnancy) are not also held accountable to, therefore, creating a double standard. [71] Margaret Sanger wrote: "No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother."[72] Denying the right to abortion can be construed from this perspective as a form of female oppression under a patriarchal system, perpetuating inequality between the sexes. Among pro-choice advocates, sexual-equality discussion often involves the additional debate regarding to what degree the potential father should have a choice in deciding whether or not to abort the developing child.
[edit] Arguments against the right to abortion
[edit] Discrimination
The book Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation presents the argument that abortion involves unjust discrimination against the unborn. According to this argument, those who deny that fetuses have a right to life do not value all human life, but instead select arbitrary characteristics (such as particular levels of physical or psychological development) as giving some human beings more value or rights than others.[73]
In contrast, philosophers who define the right to life by reference to particular levels of physical or psychological development typically maintain that such characteristics are morally relevant,[74] and reject the assumption that all human life necessarily has value (or that membership in the species Homo sapiens is in itself morally relevant).[75]
[edit] Deprivation
Further information: Philosophical aspects of the abortion debate
The argument of deprivation states that abortion is morally wrong because it deprives the fetus of a valuable future.[76] On this account, killing an adult human being is wrong because it deprives the victim of a future like ours—a future containing highly valuable or desirable experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments.[77] If a being has such a future, then (according to the argument) killing that being would seriously harm it and hence would be seriously wrong.[78] But since a fetus does have such a future, the "overwhelming majority" of deliberate abortions are placed in the "same moral category" as killing an innocent adult human being.[79] Not all abortions are unjustified according to this argument: abortion would be justified if the same justification could be applied to killing an adult human.
Criticism of this line of reasoning follows several threads.
Some reject the argument on grounds relating to personal identity, holding that the fetus is not the same entity as the adult into which it will develop, and thus that the fetus does not have a "future like ours" in the required sense.[80] Others grant that the fetus has a future like ours, but argue that being deprived of this future is not a significant harm or a significant wrong to the fetus, because there are relatively few psychological connections (continuations of memory, belief, desire and the like) between the fetus as it is now and the adult into which it will develop.[81] Another criticism is that the argument creates inequalities in the wrongness of killing:[82] as the futures of some people (for example the young, bright and healthy) appear to be far more valuable or desirable than the futures of other people (for example the old, depressed and sick), the argument appears to entail that some killings are far more wrong than others, or that some people have a far stronger right to life than others—a conclusion that is taken to be counterintuitive or
unacceptable.
[pic]
[pic]
The 2004 March for Women's Lives near the Washington Monument.
[edit] Argument from uncertainty
Some pro-life supporters argue that if there is uncertainty as to whether the fetus has a right to life, then having an abortion is equivalent to consciously taking the risk of killing another. According to this argument, if it is not known for certain whether something (such as the fetus) has a right to life, then it is reckless, and morally wrong, to treat that thing as if it lacks a right to life (for example by killing it).[83] This would place abortion in the same moral category as manslaughter (if it turns out that the fetus has a right to life) or certain forms of criminal negligence (if it turns out that the fetus does not have a right to life).[84]
David Boonin replies that if this kind of argument were correct, then the killing of nonhuman animals and plants would also be morally wrong, because (Boonin contends) it is not known for certain that such beings lack a right to life.[85] Boonin also argues that arguments from uncertainty fail because the mere fact that one might be mistaken in finding certain arguments persuasive (for example, arguments for the claim that the fetus lacks a right to life) does not mean that one should act contrary to those arguments or assume them to be mistaken.[86]
[edit] Religious beliefs
Main article: Religion and abortion
Each faith has many varying views on the moral implications of abortion with each side citing their own textual proof. Oftentimes, these views can be in direct opposition to each other.[87]
Some pro-life Christians support their views with Scripture references such as that of Luke 1:15; Jeremiah 1:4–5; Genesis 25:21–23; Matthew 1:18; and Psalm 139:13–16. Roman Catholics in particular believe that human life begins at conception as well as the right to life, so abortion is considered immoral and a violation of the Fifth Commandment: "You shall not kill" (Exodus 20:13).[88] The Church of England also considers abortion to be morally wrong, though their position is not as firm as that of Roman Catholicism.[89]
Under governments that hold for the separation of church and state, personal religious views ought not factor into decisions of law. These governing bodies, therefore, intend to look toward empirical and logical discussion in order to create legislation regarding the issue of abortion, rather than religious belief.
Effect upon crime rate
Main article: Legalized abortion and crime effect
A theory attempts to draw a correlation between the United States' unprecedented nationwide decline of the overall crime rate during the 1990s and the decriminalization of abortion 20 years prior.
The suggestion was brought to widespread attention by a 1999 academic paper, The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime, authored by the economists Steven D. Levitt and John Donohue. They attributed the drop in crime to a reduction in individuals said to have a higher statistical probability of committing crimes: unwanted children, especially those born to mothers who are African American, impoverished, adolescent, uneducated, and single. The change coincided with what would have been the adolescence, or peak years of potential criminality, of those who had not been born as a result of Roe v. Wade and similar cases. Donohue and Levitt's study also noted that states which legalized abortion before the rest of the nation experienced the lowering crime rate pattern earlier, and those with higher abortion rates had more pronounced reductions.[98]
Fellow economists Christopher Foote and Christopher Goetz criticized the methodology in the Donohue-Levitt study, noting a lack of accommodation for statewide yearly variations such as cocaine use, and recalculating based on incidence of crime per capita; they found no statistically significant results.[99] Levitt and Donohue responded to this by presenting an adjusted data set which took into account these concerns and reported that the data maintained the statistical significance of their initial paper.[100]
Such research has been criticized by some as being utilitarian, discriminatory as to race and socioeconomic class, and as promoting eugenics as a solution to crime.[101][102] Levitt states in his book Freakonomics that they are neither promoting nor negating any course of action—merely reporting data as economists.
[edit] Breast cancer hypothesis
Main article: Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis
The abortion-breast cancer hypothesis posits that induced abortion increases the risk of developing breast cancer.[103] This position contrasts with the scientific consensus that abortion does not cause breast cancer.[104][105][106][107]
In early pregnancy, levels of estrogen increase, leading to breast growth in preparation for lactation. The hypothesis proposes that if this process is interrupted by an abortion – before full maturity in the third trimester – then more relatively vulnerable immature cells could be left than there were prior to the pregnancy, resulting in a greater potential risk of breast cancer. The hypothesis mechanism was first proposed and explored in rat studies conducted in the 1980s.[108][109][110]
[edit] Exceptions in abortion law
|[pic] |This section requires expansion. |
There are a few common exceptions sometimes found in legal domains where abortion is generally forbidden. Legal domains which do not have abortion on demand will often allow it when the health of the mother is at stake. "Health of the mother" may mean something different in different areas: for example, the Republic of Ireland allows abortion only to save the life of the mother, whereas pro-lifers in the United States argue health exceptions are used so broadly as to render a ban essentially meaningless.[111]
Although separate issues, laws allowing abortion in cases of rape or incest often go together. For example, before Roe v. Wade, 13 US states allowed abortion in the case of either rape or incest, but only 1 allowed for it just for rape (Mississippi), and none for just incest.[112]
Also, many countries allow for abortion only through the first or second trimester, and some may allow abortion in cases of fetal defects, e.g., down syndrome
|[pic] |This section requires expansion. |
[edit] Bodily rights
An argument first presented by Judith Jarvis Thomson states that even if the fetus has a right to life, abortion is morally permissible because a woman has a right to control her own body. Thomson's variant of this argument draws an analogy between forcing a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy and forcing a person's body to be used as a dialysis machine for another person suffering from kidney failure. It is argued that just as it would be permissible to "unplug" and thereby cause the death of the person who is using one's …show more content…
kidneys, so it is permissible to abort the fetus (who similarly, it is said, has no right to use one's body against one's will).
Critics of this argument generally argue that there are morally relevant disanalogies between abortion and the kidney failure scenario.
For example, it is argued that the fetus is the woman's child as opposed to a mere stranger;[59] that abortion kills the fetus rather than merely letting it die;[60] and that in the case of pregnancy arising from voluntary intercourse, the woman has either tacitly consented to the fetus using her body,[61] or has a duty to allow it to use her body since she herself is responsible for its need to use her body.[62] Some writers defend the analogy against these objections, arguing that the disanalogies are morally irrelevant or do not apply to abortion in the way critics have …show more content…
claimed.[63]
Alternative scenarios have been put forth as more accurate and realistic representations of the moral issues present in abortion. John Noonan proposes the scenario of a family who was found to be liable for frostbite finger loss suffered by a dinner guest whom they refused to allow to stay overnight, although it was very cold outside and the guest showed signs of being sick. It is argued that just as it would not be permissible to refuse temporary accommodation for the guest to protect them from physical harm, it would not be permissible to refuse temporary accommodation of a fetus.[64]
Other critics claim that there is a difference between artificial and extraordinary means of preservation, such as medical treatment, kidney dialysis, and blood transfusions, and normal and natural means of preservation, such as gestation, childbirth, and breastfeeding. They argue that if a baby was born into an environment in which there was no replacement available for her mother's breast milk, and the baby would either breastfeed or starve, the mother would have to allow the baby to breastfeed. But the mother would never have to give the baby a blood transfusion, no matter what the circumstances were. The difference between breastfeeding in that scenario and blood transfusions is the difference between using your body as a kidney dialysis machine, and gestation and childbirth.[65][66][67][68][69][70]
[edit] Sexual emancipation and equality
Some argue that women's freedoms are limited until they can have the right to abortion on demand and to walk away from parenthood like men can. Governments that ban abortion arguably burden women with certain duties that men (who, too, are responsible for the pregnancy) are not also held accountable to, therefore, creating a double standard. [71] Margaret Sanger wrote: "No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother."[72] Denying the right to abortion can be construed from this perspective as a form of female oppression under a patriarchal system, perpetuating inequality between the sexes. Among pro-choice advocates, sexual-equality discussion often involves the additional debate regarding to what degree the potential father should have a choice in deciding whether or not to abort the developing child.
[edit] Arguments against the right to abortion
[edit] Discrimination
The book Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation presents the argument that abortion involves unjust discrimination against the unborn. According to this argument, those who deny that fetuses have a right to life do not value all human life, but instead select arbitrary characteristics (such as particular levels of physical or psychological development) as giving some human beings more value or rights than others.[73]
In contrast, philosophers who define the right to life by reference to particular levels of physical or psychological development typically maintain that such characteristics are morally relevant,[74] and reject the assumption that all human life necessarily has value (or that membership in the species Homo sapiens is in itself morally relevant).[75]
[edit] Deprivation
Further information: Philosophical aspects of the abortion debate
The argument of deprivation states that abortion is morally wrong because it deprives the fetus of a valuable future.[76] On this account, killing an adult human being is wrong because it deprives the victim of a future like ours—a future containing highly valuable or desirable experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments.[77] If a being has such a future, then (according to the argument) killing that being would seriously harm it and hence would be seriously wrong.[78] But since a fetus does have such a future, the "overwhelming majority" of deliberate abortions are placed in the "same moral category" as killing an innocent adult human being.[79] Not all abortions are unjustified according to this argument: abortion would be justified if the same justification could be applied to killing an adult human.
Criticism of this line of reasoning follows several threads.
Some reject the argument on grounds relating to personal identity, holding that the fetus is not the same entity as the adult into which it will develop, and thus that the fetus does not have a "future like ours" in the required sense.[80] Others grant that the fetus has a future like ours, but argue that being deprived of this future is not a significant harm or a significant wrong to the fetus, because there are relatively few psychological connections (continuations of memory, belief, desire and the like) between the fetus as it is now and the adult into which it will develop.[81] Another criticism is that the argument creates inequalities in the wrongness of killing:[82] as the futures of some people (for example the young, bright and healthy) appear to be far more valuable or desirable than the futures of other people (for example the old, depressed and sick), the argument appears to entail that some killings are far more wrong than others, or that some people have a far stronger right to life than others—a conclusion that is taken to be counterintuitive or
unacceptable.
[pic]
[pic]
The 2004 March for Women's Lives near the Washington Monument.
[edit] Argument from uncertainty
Some pro-life supporters argue that if there is uncertainty as to whether the fetus has a right to life, then having an abortion is equivalent to consciously taking the risk of killing another. According to this argument, if it is not known for certain whether something (such as the fetus) has a right to life, then it is reckless, and morally wrong, to treat that thing as if it lacks a right to life (for example by killing it).[83] This would place abortion in the same moral category as manslaughter (if it turns out that the fetus has a right to life) or certain forms of criminal negligence (if it turns out that the fetus does not have a right to life).[84]
David Boonin replies that if this kind of argument were correct, then the killing of nonhuman animals and plants would also be morally wrong, because (Boonin contends) it is not known for certain that such beings lack a right to life.[85] Boonin also argues that arguments from uncertainty fail because the mere fact that one might be mistaken in finding certain arguments persuasive (for example, arguments for the claim that the fetus lacks a right to life) does not mean that one should act contrary to those arguments or assume them to be mistaken.[86]
[edit] Religious beliefs
Main article: Religion and abortion
Each faith has many varying views on the moral implications of abortion with each side citing their own textual proof. Oftentimes, these views can be in direct opposition to each other.[87]
Some pro-life Christians support their views with Scripture references such as that of Luke 1:15; Jeremiah 1:4–5; Genesis 25:21–23; Matthew 1:18; and Psalm 139:13–16. Roman Catholics in particular believe that human life begins at conception as well as the right to life, so abortion is considered immoral and a violation of the Fifth Commandment: "You shall not kill" (Exodus 20:13).[88] The Church of England also considers abortion to be morally wrong, though their position is not as firm as that of Roman Catholicism.[89]
Under governments that hold for the separation of church and state, personal religious views ought not factor into decisions of law. These governing bodies, therefore, intend to look toward empirical and logical discussion in order to create legislation regarding the issue of abortion, rather than religious belief.
Effect upon crime rate
Main article: Legalized abortion and crime effect
A theory attempts to draw a correlation between the United States' unprecedented nationwide decline of the overall crime rate during the 1990s and the decriminalization of abortion 20 years prior.
The suggestion was brought to widespread attention by a 1999 academic paper, The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime, authored by the economists Steven D. Levitt and John Donohue. They attributed the drop in crime to a reduction in individuals said to have a higher statistical probability of committing crimes: unwanted children, especially those born to mothers who are African American, impoverished, adolescent, uneducated, and single. The change coincided with what would have been the adolescence, or peak years of potential criminality, of those who had not been born as a result of Roe v. Wade and similar cases. Donohue and Levitt's study also noted that states which legalized abortion before the rest of the nation experienced the lowering crime rate pattern earlier, and those with higher abortion rates had more pronounced reductions.[98]
Fellow economists Christopher Foote and Christopher Goetz criticized the methodology in the Donohue-Levitt study, noting a lack of accommodation for statewide yearly variations such as cocaine use, and recalculating based on incidence of crime per capita; they found no statistically significant results.[99] Levitt and Donohue responded to this by presenting an adjusted data set which took into account these concerns and reported that the data maintained the statistical significance of their initial paper.[100]
Such research has been criticized by some as being utilitarian, discriminatory as to race and socioeconomic class, and as promoting eugenics as a solution to crime.[101][102] Levitt states in his book Freakonomics that they are neither promoting nor negating any course of action—merely reporting data as economists.
[edit] Breast cancer hypothesis
Main article: Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis
The abortion-breast cancer hypothesis posits that induced abortion increases the risk of developing breast cancer.[103] This position contrasts with the scientific consensus that abortion does not cause breast cancer.[104][105][106][107]
In early pregnancy, levels of estrogen increase, leading to breast growth in preparation for lactation. The hypothesis proposes that if this process is interrupted by an abortion – before full maturity in the third trimester – then more relatively vulnerable immature cells could be left than there were prior to the pregnancy, resulting in a greater potential risk of breast cancer. The hypothesis mechanism was first proposed and explored in rat studies conducted in the 1980s.[108][109][110]
[edit] Exceptions in abortion law
|[pic] |This section requires expansion. |
There are a few common exceptions sometimes found in legal domains where abortion is generally forbidden. Legal domains which do not have abortion on demand will often allow it when the health of the mother is at stake. "Health of the mother" may mean something different in different areas: for example, the Republic of Ireland allows abortion only to save the life of the mother, whereas pro-lifers in the United States argue health exceptions are used so broadly as to render a ban essentially meaningless.[111]
Although separate issues, laws allowing abortion in cases of rape or incest often go together. For example, before Roe v. Wade, 13 US states allowed abortion in the case of either rape or incest, but only 1 allowed for it just for rape (Mississippi), and none for just incest.[112]
Also, many countries allow for abortion only through the first or second trimester, and some may allow abortion in cases of fetal defects, e.g., down syndrome