Abortion Essay, Research Paper
Abortion
In order to discuss an important issue such as abortion, we must first understand what it means. Abortion is the expulsion of a human fetus within the first twelve weeks of pregnancy, before it is viable. In other words, it is when a women has tissue removed from her uterus. Abortion is a very fragile issue to discuss because of the many conflicts involved with pro-abortion and anti-abortion. It has many negative and positive response from many people including philosophers. Thus, we will be discussing the arguments of utilitarian reasoning, of the article written by Judith Jarvis Thompson who is pro-abortion and by Sidney Callahan who is a prolife but also discusses prochoice. We will be analyzing each argument to understand their point of view on this controversial issue. Furthermore, I will indicate my own solution and voice my own opinion on abortion and also I will discuss what I do agree with and what I do disagree.
First , according to utilitarianism, we ought to decide which action or practice is best by considering the likely or actual consequences of each alternative. Hence for the utilitarian their arguments for abortion often cite the bad consequences that may result from a continued pregnancy such as loss of job, the suffering of the future child, the burden of caring for the child under particular circumstances, and so on. Some of their arguments against abortion also cite the loss of happiness (and that is the central theme in utilitarianism: happiness) and the future contribution of the being that is aborted. Act utilitarians believe that the persons making the abortion decision must consider the consequences of the alternative actions. In other words deciding to have the abortion or not. The kinds of consequences to consider are health risks and benefits, positive or negative mental or psychological consequences, and financial and social aspects of the alternative choices. Notice that the fetus is not an issue to the utilitarian if it is recognize as a person or not.It is the effects on the mother, child, and others that matter in the utilitarian thinking and not the moral status of the fetus or the ontological status at that stage of development. Moreover, notice that the utilitarian say that abortion sometimes would be permissible and sometimes not because it would depend on the consequences.
In the article A Defense of Abortion, Thompson agrees that the prospect for drawing a line in the development of the fetus looks dim. She s also inclined to agree that the fetus has already become a human person well before birth. Because by the 10th week, for example, it already has a face, arms and legs, fingers and toes, it has internal organs, and brain activity is detectable. Thompson grants that the fetus is a person. Thus the argument against abortion is that every person has a right to life. However, she uses the example of the violinist to shed another light about the issue of right to life. Thompson says to imagine that one morning to wake up and find ourselves attached through various tubings to a famous violinist. We have been kidnapped during the night because we are the only one to have the right blood type to help the violinist who has a fatal kidney disease. So they have plugged us into him so that he can live. To unplug ourselves would mean to kill the violinist. Thus, they say it will only be for nine months but what if it was for nine years or the rest of our life. Thompson reminds us that all persons have a right to live, and violinists are persons. She says that we have the right to decide what to our body, but a person s right to life outweighs our right to decide what happens in and to our body. She also brings the issue of rape; if a woman got pregnant due to rape would those who oppose abortion make an exception? She is sure they would change their minds about that. Beside rape, she also says that what if the pregnancy would shorten the mother s life would aborting be permissible? She uses the example of a woman who has become pregnant, and now learns that she has a heart problem which might result into death if she carries the baby to term.That is when she explains the extreme position which is abortion is impermisible even to the mother s life. So, who is more important to live? They are both people and do have the right to live, so how to choose between them? To perform the abortion would be directly killing the child, whereas to do nothing would not be killing the mother but letting her die.Thompson also brings up the case of self-defense. If a person is being harmed in any way such as the pregnant woman with the heart conditon then abortion would be permissible because it is self-defense to save her life. Same for the example of the violinist; we are being harmed and our life is in danger if we stay plugged in to him. Thus, self-defense is permissible to save our life and to let the other die.
She also brings another argument of self-defense with an example to make it clearer to us readers. Suppose a mother finds herself in a very tiny house with a rapidly growing child. The mother will be crushed to death but the child won t be crushed to death and in the end he will simply burst and walk out a free man. She argues that however the innocent the child may be, the mother does not have to wait passively while it crushes her to death. Thompson concludes for the self-defense is that a woman can defend her life against the threat to it posed by an unborn child, even if it involves death.
She brings another view to defend abortion which is an example of Henry Fonda s cool hands. She is asking us that for a persons right to life would include having the right to be given at least the bare minimum one needs for a continuum of life. The question she is asking is that what if the person has no right to even be given the bare minimum? She uses the example of a person who s sick, ready to die. The only thing that will save him is the touch of Henry Fonda s cool hand on the fevered brow. However, the person has no right to be given the touch of Henry Fonda s cool hands on the fevered brow. It would be nice if Mr. Fonda could but the person has no right at all against anybody that he should do this to him. In addition if we return to the other example of the violinist, who needs our kidneys to live, has no right against us that we should give him continued use of our kidneys. She argues that nobody has any right to use our kidneys unless we give him the right to do so. Also nobody has the right against us that we should give him this right because if we do let the violionist use our kidneys it is shown as a kind act. Plus , to explain more on this argument is another example presented. Suppose a boy and his little brother are jointly given a box of chocolate for Christmas. If the older boy takes the box and refuses to give any of them, then he is unjust to him, because the brother has been given a right to half. This shows that the little boy was treated unfairly because he has at least the ownership of half of
them. Thus, Thompson argues that the right to life consists not in the right not to be killed, but rather in the right not to be killed unjustly. So, if a pregnant woman does not kill an unborn child unjustly, that person does not violate her right to life.
Another argument is the use of the terms consent and voluntariness. For consent , Thompson says that if the pregnant woman has not given consent to the unborn child to use her body for shelter and food then she has the right to abort it such as a pregnancy due to rape. If the woman does not want to have a child then she has the right to chose for it being killed because it is not unjust against herself and of the child. For a woman voluntarily has intercourse, and took all the precautions to prevent being pregnant, although she is conscious that she may get pregnant, does in fact get pregnant than it is not her fault. Because it is not her fault, and she doesn t want the child then she has the right to have an abortion. Thus, because a pregnant women did not consent or did not voluntarily want this to happen to her then abortion is viewed not to be unjust especially if it were rape.
By using many of her examples she argues about the term for what is right. Take the case of Henry Fonda. Remember that Thompson said that the person had no right to the touch of his cool hands on his fevered brow, even though it might save the person s life. Even if Henry Fonda was his neighbor, and not in the West Coast, he still has no right to be given that to save his life. Also with her other examples, she brings up the same argument which is that even though we ought to let the violinist use our kidneys for only the one hour he needs, we should not conclude that he has the right to do so. If we refused we would be like the boy who owns all the chocolate and will give none away, self-centered, callous and indecent but not unjust. Same for a woman who is raped then she should have an abortion if she wishes but she would not be unjust.
Thompson brings the point of a Good Samaritan to argue her point for abortion. She says that a Good Samaritan would rush out to give assistance, even if it means putting his life at risk. She uses the example of Kitty Genovese who was murdered while thirty-eight people did nothing at all to help her. She say that there wasn t a Good Samaritan to her assistance not even a Minimal Decent Samaritan to at least call for help. Of course no one is legally forced to do something like this. However, she argues that many women are forced not only to be Minimal Decent Samaritan but also a Good Samaritan to the unborn child inside her. She says that women with unwanted pregnancy should not be forced by law to keep this child and be a Good Samaritan to it. She argues that there is gross injustice in the state of law. The people who did not act to help Kitty Genovese were not charged by law, however if a woman doesn t want the unborn child can be punished by law if she decides to have an abortion. She argues that Minimal Decent Samaritan laws are one thing, Good Samaritan laws are another and also highly improper. Thompson says that what we should ask ourselves is not whether a person is compelled by law to be a good Samaritan,but whether they can be a Good Samaritan voluntarily.
Thompson argues that even though the fetus is recognize as a person, the pregnant woman still has a right to have an abortion. She argues if the parents did not try to prevent the pregnancy, do not obtain an abortion, but rather take it home with them then they have assumed responsibility for it. The parents have given it rights and they cannot stop given it support because they find it difficult to go on providing it. However if the couple did try to prevent the pregnancy, then they should not take the responsibilities to provide for it and take care of it.
While Thompson argues that abortion is not impermissible, she does not argue that it is always permissible. For instance, a sick and frightened fourteen-year-old schoolgirl is pregnantdue to rape. She may choose abortion and that any law that rules this out is an insane law. However, she doesn t agree and says it would be indecent if a woman requested an abortion, and indecent for the doctor to perform it, if she is seven months pregnant because she wants to avoid a nuisance of postponing a trip abroad. Thus she concludes that a very early abortion is not killing a person but a thing.
The next article is Abortion and the Sexual Agenda: A Case for Profile Feminism by Sidney Callahan. Callahan gives the arguments for pro-choice and, like herself, prolife. She says that pro-choice feminist are claiming that abortion rights are prerequisites for women s full development and social equality. However, prolife feminists, like herself, argue that women can never achieve the fulfillment of feminist goals in a society permissive toward abortion. Feminist theorists of the prochoice position want to put the demand for unrestricted abortion rights as a moral imperative and insist upon women s right to complete reproduction freedom. Callahan summarizes the prochoice views in terms of four central moral claims.
The first one is the moral right to control one s own body . She says that prochoice feminist argues that a woman choosing an abortion should be seen and recognized in our common law tradition. These feminists say if a women does not want to go through with the demands of a pregnancy and birth, she should not be forced to against her will. For it is her body and she has the right to terminate the pregnancy if she wants to. They argue that nobody is forced to donate an organ or other invasive physical procedures no matter how good the cause is.Hence, prochoice argues that no woman should be forced to a cumpulsory pregnancy . They also refer to the fetus as a biological parasite taking resources from the woman s body. They argue that during pregnancy, a woman s whole life and energies will be actively involved in the nine-month process. In addition, the mother must undertake a twenty-year responsibility for raising the child. They say that since it s her body, it s her risk, her burden, then she alone should be free to decide on pregnancy or abortion.
The second moral claim is the moral necessity of autonomy and choice in personal responsibility . Prochoice feminists claim that to be a full adult morally, a woman must be able to make responsible life commitments. To plan, choose, and exercise personal responsibility, one must have control of reproduction. They say that a woman must be able to make a yes or no decision about a specific pregnancy, according to her situation,resources, prior commitments and life plan. For them, contraceptive provides a measure of personal control. However if by any chance the contraceptives fail and a pregnancy has resulted then thats why the free access to abortion can provide the necessary garantee. Because, they argue, without reproduction freedom, women s personal moral agency and human consciousness are subjected to biology and chance.
The third moral claim is the moral claim for the contingent value of fetal life . Prochoice feminists claim that the value of fetal life depend upon the woman s free consent and subjective acceptance. The fetus must be invested with maternal valuing in order to become human. Thus , they argue, if the fetal interests or fetal rights can never outweigh the woman s prior interest and right. If a women does not consent to invest her pregnancy with meaning or value then she has the right to terminate her pregnancy. They say that prior to her free choice and conscious investment, a woman cannot be described as a mother nor can the child be said to exist. Also they say that a woman is allowed to terminate her pregnancy if there is a genetic problem or some other problems that might emerge before birth. Thus, they say that late abortion should be granted without legal restriction.
Finally the forth moral claim is the moral right of woem to full social equality . They argue that women have a moral right to full equality. They say that if a women cannot control when and how she will be pregnant or rear children, she is disadvantaged especially in a male-dominant society. They argue that women must enjoy the basic right of a person to the free exercise of heterosexual intercourse and full sexual expression, without worrying about getting pregnant. Hence, abortion is necessary for promiscuous women.
Callahan provides four moral claims from the prolife feminists view. The first one is from thr moral right to control one s own body to a more inclusive ideal of justice . Prolife feminist agree that the moral right to control one s own body does apply to organ transplants, mastectomies, contraception, and sterilization; but they disagree ,with the prochoice, that it is not a conceptualization adequate for abortion. Prolife feminist recognize the fetus as a human development and that it is a continuum. They argue that it is wrong to harm other bodies no matter if they are immature, dependent, different looking, or powerless. Even the the handicapped, the retarded and new borns are legally protected from harm. They argue that just like women who were treated inferior now the fetus is seen as merely a biological life instead of a person. They also argue that the fetus is an immature, dependent form of human life which only needs time and protection to develop. Thus, they say that immaturity and dependency are not crime, so why kill them.
The second claim is from the necessity of autonomy and choice in personal responsibility to an expanded sense of responsibility . They argue that women should have a wider acceptance of the unexpected events that life presents. They argue that a woman, involuntarily pregnant, has a moral obligation to the existing fetus wheter she consents to it or not. The prolife feminist argue that these women should accept the burdens; the fetus has rights arising from its extreme need and the interdependency and unity of humankind. They say that to follow the prochoice feminist idealogy of insistent individualistic autonomy and control is to betray a fundamental basis of the moral life.
The third claim is from the moral claim of the contingent value of the fetal life to the moral claim for the intrinsic value of human life . They argue that human life from the beginning to the end of the development has intrinsic value. They say that it s either we are going to value human life and humanity as a good thing or take some variant of the nihilist position that assumes human life is just one more random occurrence in the universe such that each human life must be justified to prove itself worthy to continue. Thus, they argue that biological life should never be dicounted. Collective human familiy is the basis for human solidarity, equality, and natural human rights.