Research

My research is done on the research of abortion, specifically focusing on morality of abortion and whether or not it should be decided by the establishment of fetus is a person. The main reason for the establishment for a fetus to be a person is to determine whether abortion is murder or just a medical operation. If the fetus is a person, then abortion will be killing the fetus, and murder is committed. However, if the fetus is not a person, then abortion will not be murder, thus justifies the morality of abortion. It is generally accepted that if an abortion is needed to save the mother’s life, then abortion is permissible. But in my research, whether or not the mother’s life is at stake is out of the picture.

As medical technology advances in modern day society, abortion becomes more and more common. However, the debate for different moral views in debate for abortion continues. Major views on abortion can be separated to two schools, pro-life and pro-choice, where pro-life favors the ban on abortion and pro-choice favors permissibility on abortion under some restrictions.

A school of pro-choice argument assumes the condition that the fetus is a person with a right to life; under this condition whether or not the fetus is a person is completely irrelevant in the debate of abortion, hence how one establish that fetus is or is not a person with the right to life has no effect on moral decisions on abortion. In the case where abortion is necessary to save the mother’s life, both the mother’s right to life and the fetus’s right to life is at stake. Granted that abortion kills the fetus, the mother is merely exercising her right to life and proper self-defense. If a person points a gun at you, it is logical that you have the right to kill the gunman in order to protect your right to life. However, in the case that the mother’s life is not endangered by the pregnancy, the mother should still be allowed abortion. The right to life includes having given the bare minimum that one needs to continue life, but limits to cases where the right to life does not intrude or violate another person’s body. Having the right to life does not guarantee having either a right to be given the use of another person’s body. From the mother’s point of view, her right to life is more important than the fetus’s right to life; however, it is impossible for third party bystander to chose between the mother’s and the fetus’s right to life. The decision of abortion should be made entirely by the mother; bystanders have no right to make this decision for her.

An important concept to keep in mind is that abortion is not impermissible, but this does not mean that abortion is always permissible. The pro-choice party supports the idea for having abortion as an option; however the pro-choice party does not promote abortion. A teen age schoolgirl, pregnant due to rape is entitled to abortion, but having an abortion seven months into pregnancy is permissible.

An example called the sick violinist example can be used as analogy throughout to argue against many cases for abortion should be permissible. In the sick violinist example, imagine you were kidnapped one day and woke up in a hospital, having strapped to a hospital bed and having tubes inserted in you. A world famous violinist lies beside you, he as some rare disease and you are the only person in the world that can help him live. Even though you will be provided with the best food, entertainment, and environment that you desire, but you must stay in the hospital for 9 months so the violinist can survive. The instinctive decision is to pull the plug and exercise your freedom as a person; however, everyone in the world other than your relatives and friends believe that the sick violinist’s life is more important than your freedom, which shows that any third party by standard should not intrude on this matter. However, some Good Samaritan may agree to stay in the hospital for 9 months, where they believe in saving the sick violinist’s life. Nonetheless, the decision of these Good Samaritans will change if the situation changes where 5 years, 10 years, or even a life time is needed to keep the sick violinist alive. The basic argument still stays, that unwanted pregnancy is a violation of freedom for the mother.

Another argument of abortion revolve around the debate of define fetus as a person. If the fetus is indeed a person, then abortion is murder and should be forbidden; and vice versa, if fetus is not a person, then abortion is not murder and should be permissible. A school of thought state that if fetus is a person when it is “viable” – when fetus can live outside the womb and does not invades mother’s body – the boundary becomes unclear due to different scenario. Fetal development is different for each embryo, and “viability” is different for each fetus due to medical technology, hospital environment or maternal health. Therefore, “viability” is an impractical way to distinguishing fetus and person, or draw boundary between abortion and killing. Another suggestion to distinguish personhood and embryonic cell is self- consciousness. Some implies being a person is bound with minimal level of self-consciousness, an awareness of self existence in space and time. However, it is to argue that newborn baby does not have self-awareness, but that does not justify infanticide. Thus the debate for whether or not the fetus is a person should not be considered. Furthermore, if it is to say that fetus is considered a person because it has the potential of developing into a full grown person, then using condoms or birth control methods is considered murder, for the sperm and eggs killed too have the potential to develop into full grown person.

In conclusion, whether or not the fetus is a person is irrelevant in the debate for abortion. It is demonstrated that if fetus is considered a person, then sperm and eggs should be consider as persons as well, which is impractical and illogical. The sick violinist example shows that even if the fetus is considered a person, abortion should still be permissible.

Sources:

Thomson, Judith Jarvis “A Defense of Abortion”

Glover, Jonathan “Matters of Life and Death”

Wildung, Beverley “Our Right to Chose: Towards a New Ethic of Abortion”