The issue of abortion is one of the most contentious, and emotive dilemmas faced by modern societies. The question is whether one should allow the termination of a child whilst it is in its mother’s womb. For some, the question is even more fundamental: at what stage is the foetus in the womb to be regarded as a child? At conception? At birth? Or, maybe somewhere between. The battle-lines are drawn between strict, religious (‘pro-life’) arguments (that it is never permissible), and those (‘pro-choice’) that emphasise the mother’s right to choose as the primary concern. Whilst abortion has been accepted by the American state since the land-mark Roe vs. Wade case in the early 1970s, this is by no means a reflection of universal agreement – either international or within America itself – as many Western countries still have considerable restrictions on abortion. For example, the Irish position has softened only recently, and the Catholic Church steadfastly refuses to change its resolutely pro-life stance in the face of criticism from Women’s and other lobby-groups.
The abortion debate revolves around a number of questions. Does a woman have a right to her body that the fetus cannot take away? Does this right mean that a woman has a right to "unplug" from the fetus? Or, does the fetus have a right to life that is binding on the woman and her body and that outweighs any rights held by the mother, requiring the mother to give birth? Is a fetus only a fetus or is it "life" and a person that deserves rights and protections? Does "human life" begin at conception or at birth? Is destroying a fetus akin to "killing a human" or murder?
What about the father? What rights does the father have over a fetus? If a mother seeks an abortion, can a father that wants "life" for his child defend it? And, what if the mother wants to give birth to her child, while the father desires an abortion? What say does the father have? Is this, therefore, simply a question of the woman's rights, or the father's rights as well?
Is a woman responsible for actions and behavior that may lead to an unwanted pregnancy, making her responsible for the fetus even if it is "unwanted"? Are there circumstances in which a woman cannot be said to be responsible for her own impregnation, such as failed contraception or rape? Can this justify an abortion?
Is abortion an issue that is subjectively moral/immoral, so should be reserved to individual judgement (not state law)? Must opponents simply tolerate the practice? Or, is the scale of abortions world-wide too large to ignore, and does this scale give cause to a ban?
Is abortion an important way for young women to ensure that their futures are not "destroyed"? Is it an important part of ensuring that women can have sex comfortably and without worry? Is child-rearing more fulfilling than many women tend to believe? Is it wrong to consider "quality of life" issues here? Is the "sanctity of life" more important than "quality of life"? Does abortion result in psychological disorders or depression? Does it increase the chances of cancer? What about during emergencies in which the risks of giving birth are very high for a woman? Should she be forced to endure these risks, or can an abortion be appropriate in these circumstances?
Does abortion generally empower women with an important choice regarding their bodies? Or, does it demean them, possibly by opening them to sexual exploitation by men.
Are there viable alternatives to abortion such as adoption? Does the option of adoption invalidate all concerns regarding raising a child? Are there concerns regarding the safety of child-birth that make the possibility of putting a child up for adoption risky? Is abortion itself risky? How do the risks of abortion compare to the risks of child-birth?
Does the illegalization of abortion merely push women to seek "back alley" abortions, which are less safe? Is it impossible to enforce any ban on abortions? Does this matter? Is abortion merely a new form of birth control that is being exploited by women, and which allows them (and their partner) to act recklessly in their sexual behavior?
Is it better to abort a child that will be unwanted or neglected by its parent? Is this good for children that would, perhaps, suffer, and possibly good for society that would suffer from their presence (crime)? Or is it wrong to base decisions regarding abortion (life and death) on merely whether a baby is wanted? Are the social problems that will confront a baby irrelevant or inappropriate to consider? Can/should they be addressed by other means than abortion? These and other questions frame the complicated abortion debate, which continues to be highly contentious, with massive support on both sides internationally.
Video primers (all other videos are at the bottom of this article)
[]
[]
Yes
"Pro Choice". Posted on YouTube December 12th, 2006.
[]
[]
No
"Pro-Life / Pro-Choice: you NEED to see this". Posted on YouTube March 31, 2007[1]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Woman's rights: Does a woman have a right to her body that includes a right to abortion?
[]
[]
Yes
Women must control their bodies or risk becoming servants of the fetus Forcing a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy subjugates a woman to the fetus. Under no circumstances should a woman's right to control her own body be curtailed in this way. Or, in other words, a fetus cannot be said to have rights to a woman's body that enslave the woman and her body in the relationship. This argument is encapsulated in what is known as the "dialisis analogy", put forward by Judith Jarvis in "A defense of abortion". The argument is that, an individual that hypothetically lives off of another woman's body does not have a right to continue to utilize that woman's body as a kind of "dialisis machine". The woman has a right to "unplug". In the same sense, a woman has the right to "unplug" her body from the fetus, which depends on the woman's body to live, but which does not have rights over the woman's body for its continued existence.
Abortion may be immoral, but it is still a woman's right There are many things that are seen as immoral by some people, but which must, nevertheless, be upheld as a right. As is argued above, the fetus has no absolute right to the woman's body, and therefore the woman has a right to "unplug" (abort). This is the case no matter how "wrong" we might believe the act of "unplugging" and killing the fetus to be.
Opponents can object to abortions, but must tolerate the choice Opponents of abortion may have a strong moral case and belief against abortion. Yet, their beliefs are not shared by all. They must tolerate a woman's right to have an abortion, even if they believe the act to be morally wrong. The best that opponents can hope for is to convince women that it is immoral, but to ask for the illegalization of abortion would be to wrongly deny that abortion is a right.
A woman has the sole right to decide to seek an abortion. A woman carries a child during pregnancy and undergoes child-birth. No-one else carries the child for her; it will be her responsibility alone, and thus she should have the sole right to decide. These are important events in a woman’s life, and if she does not want to go through the full nine months and subsequent birth, then she should have the right to choose not to do so. There are few – if any – other cases where something with such profound consequences is forced upon a human being against her/his will.
Abortion is the woman's choice, not the father's The Father should be told that the woman is having an abortion but until he carries and gives birth to his own baby then it is not his choice to tell the woman that she has to keep and give a painful birth to this fetus.
The mother's life is more valuable than the fetus. What makes the mothers life more important is that she is a full-grown adult and has the ability to make more children.
Women can reproduce new children with equal value to the aborted. The potential of any given child is unimportant in the context of it being possible, after an abortion, for a mother to reproduce many more children. Who is to say that a particular child has any more potential than the next? This argument is strengthened by the fact that women and couples typically aim to produce a certain number of children. Even if they abort a child (they'll still aim to produce the same number), so the quantity of newborns and potential is not diminished by the existence of abortion.
If women can't be trusted with "choice", how can they be trusted with children? It is important that society trust in women and individuals to make the right moral choices. In regard to abortion, if women can't be trusted to make the right choice, how can they be trusted with children?
[]
[]
No
The "dialysis" analogy is invalid; pregnancy is unique One of the most famous arguments against abortion is the "dialysis analogy" put forward by Judith Jarvis in 1971. It compares abortion to a situation in which a healthy woman (the mother by analogy) is attached to a dying patient (the fetus by analogy) in order to keep the dying patient alive. The concept is that the dying person does not have a right to the woman's body, and that the woman has a right to "unplug" (abort) even if it means the death of the other person. The problem with the analogy is many fold: 1. A woman and a fetus have a special relationship that is incomparable to that between a woman and a stranger or even a relative. There is a special biological drive inside the mother to keep the baby alive and a dependency by the baby on the mother. The mother, therefore, has a special responsibility to keep her child alive and not abort; 2. A woman often gives a form of tacit approval to the existence of a fetus in her womb: the act of engaging in sexual behavior; 3. abortion directly kills the embryo and does not merely "unplug" and let it die. These are critical differences that invalidate a classic, central argument for abortion.
The right to choice/privacy (abortion) does not override the right to lifeJesse Jackson, U.S. civil rights activist, now in favor of legal abortion, in National Right to Life News, (January, 1977) - "There are those who argue that the right to privacy is of [a] higher order than the right to life ... that was the premise of slavery. You could not protest the existence or treatment of slaves on the plantation because that was private and therefore outside your right to be concerned." Thus, even if a woman has a right to her body and to "choice", this right is overridden by the fetus's right to life. And, what could be more important than life? All other rights, including the mother’s right to choice, surely stem from a prior right to life; if you have no right to any life, then how do you have a right to an autonomous one? The woman may ordinarily have a reasonable right to control her own body, but this does not confer on her the entirely separate (and insupportable) right to decide whether another human lives or dies.
Women should be held responsible for behavior leading to impregnation. If one does not want to have a baby, they should not have sex, or they should take extreme precaution when having sex. Sex is not a game. It is a serious matter of reproduction and life. If a woman plays with it and becomes pregnant, she should be held responsible to carry out the birth of her child. And, it should be noted that the responsibility could end at child-birth, with it being possible to put a child up for adoption. The consequences of an unwanted pregnancy need not be major, but they must be born by the mother and father.
A woman's rights are not the only rights that need to be respected in abortion: Of course, human-rights should be respected, but it is never the case that a person has a right to make a decision with no reference to the rights and wishes of others. There are two primary rights that must be considered in addition to the rights of the woman. First, the father has some rights over the fetus. Second, the fetus itself may have some rights. The point is merely that the woman's interests and rights cannot be the only ones under consideration.
The scale of abortions makes state intervention compelling Some argue that abortion is an individual moral choice that the state should not get involved with. Yet, when an individual moral choice is practiced on a massive scale, it becomes a concern for broader society and government as well.
Under a "veil of ignorance", the unborn would adopt a pro-life social contract The "veil of ignorance" is a notion put forward by liberal philosopher John Rawls. This idea relates to the social contract people would adopt if they were effectively unborn spirits under a "veil of ignorance" regarding where they would "end-up" in life. The conclusion is that everyone would adopt a social contract that hedges against poor outcomes if they get the "short-end of the stick". Abortion could be considered the "shortest stick" (death - no life at all), so it is likely that, under a "veil of ignorance", the unborn would would adopt a pro-life social contract. It is notable that this social contract theory is tenant of liberal thought, and yet liberals are most supportive of abortion. There may be an inconsistency there.
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Fetus rights: Is it wrong to assign rights to the fetus? Is it not a person?
[]
[]
Yes
A fetus cannot have a right to a woman's body to sustain its life No individual has rights over another individual. Therefore, a fetus cannot be said to have an inviolable right to a woman's body and sustenance from that body. A woman can, therefore, decide to deprive the fetus of the usage of her body (abortion).
A fetus is no more a human than an acorn is a treeJudith Jarvis Thomson. "A Defense of Abortion". Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 1, no. 1 (Fall 1971). - "Most opposition to abortion relies on the premise that the fetus is a human being, a person, from the moment of conception. The premise is argued for, but, as I think, not well. Take, for example, the most common argument. We are asked to notice that the development of a human being from conception through birth into childhood is continuous; then it is said that to draw a line, to choose a point in this development and say "before this point the thing is not a person, after this point it is a person" is to make an arbitrary choice, a choice for which in the nature of things no good reason can be given. It is concluded that the fetus is or anyway that we had better say it is, a person from the moment of conception. But this conclusion does not follow. Similar things might be said about the development of an acorn into an oak trees, and it does not follow that acorns are oak trees, or that we had better say they are...A newly fertilized ovum, a newly implanted clump of cells, is no more a person than an acorn is an oak tree."
A fetus is not a "person" so can't have rights protecting it from abortion: Is terminating a fetus, which can neither feel emotions nor be conscious of its own "existence," really be considered equivalent to killing a "person?" Some define personhood (qualifying for rights) through a set of criteria. A being need not exhibit every criterion to qualify as a person, but failure to exhibit most is proposed as disqualification. One list includes consciousness (at least the capacity to feel pain), reasoning, self motivation, the ability to communicate on many possible topics, and self-awareness. Lists like this are intended to help someone be able to objectively distinguish between a biological human and a person. An embryo is not a person because it satisfies only one criterion, namely consciousness (and this only after it becomes susceptible to pain). Other sets of criteria conclude that an embryo lacks personhood (and a right to life) because it lacks self-consciousness, rationality, and autonomy. These lists diverge over precisely which features confer a right to life, but tend to propose that they are developed psychological features not found in embryos.
The fetus causes physical pain; the woman has a right to self-defense. The fetus causes sickness, discomfort, and and extreme pain to a woman during her pregnancy and labor. It is, therefore, justifiable for a woman to pursue an abortion in self-defense.
The potential of the fetus to become a person is not the actual.Ayn Rand - "Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a 'right to life.' A piece of protoplasm has no rights -— and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable."
If a fetus had a right to life, abortionists would be subject to murder charges While abortionists claim that fetuses should have a right to life, they would never go so far as to charge abortionists with murder. Yet, this is what would be required if we gave fetuses a right to life. Therefore, there is a fundamental inconsistency in this position.
[]
[]
No
Human life and a right to life begin at conception; abortion is murder Human life is continuum of growth that starts at conception, not at birth. The DNA that makes a person who they are is first mixed at conception upon the male sperm entering the female egg. This is when the genetic building blocks of a person are "conceived" and built upon. The person, therefore, begins at conception. Killing the fetus, thus, destroys a growing person and can be considered murder.
Life is an individual right, not a privilege, for unborn humansMother Teresa, in her amicus brief filed before the U.S. Supreme Court in the cases of Loce v. New Jersey and Krail et al. v. New Jersey in February 1994 - "Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being’s entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or sovereign... you must weep that your own government, at present, seems blind to this truth."[3]
A fetus is uniquely capable of becoming a person; deserves rights It is unquestionable that the fetus, at whatever stage of development, will inevitably develop the traits of a full-grown human person. It will also inevitably accumulate all of the rights that you yourself have. If we deprive the unborn of life via abortions, however, they will be deprived of all of this potential and future rights. This is why extending a right to life is of utmost importance; the future of the unborn depends on it.
Wanted fetuses are beloved "babies"; unwanted ones are "tissue" (inconsistent)Naomi Wolf, feminist author and advocate of legal abortion, in "Our Bodies, Our Souls", The New Republic (October 15, 1995) - "Wanted fetuses are charming, complex, REM-dreaming little beings whose profile on the sonogram looks just like Daddy, but unwanted ones are mere 'uterine material'?"[4]
Women can only be "pregnant" with a "child" not merely a "fetus" This is similar to the above argument. The point is that pregnancy can only be called pregnancy and that you can only be pregnant with a "child". Nobody would ever say, "I'm pregnant with a fetus". Therefore, fetuses should be considered "unborn children" with correlating rights.
Fetuses, as dependents, do have some rights over their mother's body The mother-fetus relationship is unlike any other relationship between individuals. The fetus is, without choice or by chance, dependent on its mother for sustenance and life. The mother has unique responsibilities toward the fetus in this relationship, and so, yes, a fetus has some unique rights over its mother.
Pro-abortionists dehumanize "fetuses" to get away with murderFrederica Matthewes-Green, "Personhood of the Unborn", on National Public Radio's All Things Considered, (January 21, 1998) - "When we question whether someone is a person, it is because we want to kill him. We do this with our enemies in wartime, or with anyone we would like to enslave or exploit. Before we can feel comfortable treating others this way, we have to expel them from the human community. But there's just no logical reason to expel the unborn."[5]
Abortion deprives a fetus of an entire human future: Some argue that abortion is wrong because it deprives the embryo of a valuable future. Indeed, killing any human being is wrong because it deprives the victim of a valuable future: any experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments that they would have enjoyed. Abortion is particularly egregious because it deprives a fetus of all experiences as a human being.
The unborn are voiceless and should be protected against abortionRonald Reagan. New York Times. September 22nd. 1980 - "I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born."[6] In other words, the unborn would all be against abortion, but, of course, they can't express their opinion as for/against abortion. It is important to protect such a voiceless minority in society.
That the fetus may do harm to the mother cannot justify destroying it. Even when born, a child can inflict much more physical pain on the mother than he can on the womb, his destruction is still illegal.
It is wrong to kill fetuses on the basis that they can't think/feel. On "the fetus cant think argument": Animal abuse, suicide and even cutting down a tree are frequently illegal on the basis that these things have some value and should not be destroyed, killed, or treated inhumanely. It has little to do with the degree of consciousness attained by a creature. If the destruction of any species with a significant value is illegal, what makes abortion any different?
Fetuses are conscious in the womb and suffer during abortions Unborn babies have a certain level of consciousness in the womb. This is partly why mothers sometimes walk around with earphones on their stomachs. Irrespective of the level of consciousness of unborn babies, their central nervous system certainly affords them the ability to feel pain and suffer. For these reasons, they should not be aborted.
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Dignity of life: Does abortion uphold the "dignity of life"?
[]
[]
Yes
Even if abortions "kill life", it can be justified as upholding a woman's life Even if a fetus is considered a "baby" or human life, abortions can still be justified. The "baby" is still not a citizen with rights, while it is in the womb. In this case, the woman's right to choose outweighs considerations of the life of the fetus. The life of the woman takes precedent over the life of the fetus. This is pro-life (pro-the-life-of-the-woman) and so respects the dignity of life.
There is no inviolable "right to life" in abortion and other cases It is clear that the notion of "the right to life" can sometimes be violated for certain ends. This is the case in sending soldiers to war. So as in abortion, it can be justified to kill a fetus under certain circumstances.
It is hypocritical to protect fetuses but send men to die in war.Rick Claro - "George W. Bush will protect your unborn fetus, then send your grown child to die in war."[7] This is a common argument that undermines the notion of "the sanctity of life" and the notion that it is "inviolable". Clearly, in war, humans frequently justify killing other human beings.
[]
[]
No
Abortion generally devalues the dignity we assign to lifeRonald Reagan, "Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation", Human Life Review, Spring 1984 - "We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life—the unborn—without diminishing the value of all human life."[8]
Abortion sets precedent of valuing some humans less than others.Ronald Reagan, "Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation", Human Life Review, Spring 1984. - "Regrettably, we live at a time when some persons do not value all human life. They want to pick and choose which individuals have value."[9]
Uncertainty over whether fetuses are "life" should halt abortions. There are strong arguments in favor of fetuses being life from conception and some strong arguments against. At a minimum, uncertainty about the "truth" should cause us to place a moratorium on abortions until we figure it out.
Human life is a continuum that does not start and stop at conception.George Carlin, comedian - "People say 'life begins at conception.' I say life began about a billion years ago and it's a continuous process."[10] Therefore, you can't call a fetus something other than life; it is part of the long continuum of human life and must be fully respected as such.
Abortions encourage infanticideRonald Reagan, "Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation", Human Life Review, Spring 1984. - "Late-term abortions, especially when the baby survives, but is then killed by starvation, neglect, or suffocation, show once again the link between abortion and infanticide. The time to stop both is now."[11]
Abortion is murder just as infanticide is murder It cannot be said that the abortion of a nine-month-old fetus is much different than the killing of a three day old baby. Neither then can much difference be given to aborting a nine-month-old fetus and a month-old fetus. If infanticide is murder, so too must be abortion.
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Life-style: Does abortion improve the ability of women to live life how they want?
[]
[]
Yes
Abortion allows women to become better people without a childRachel Kramer Bussel, "I'm Pro-Choice and I Fuck", Village Voice, January 13, 2006 - "I'm pro-choice because I couldn't fully enjoy sex were I consumed with worry about the potential consequences. I'm pro-choice for all my friends who've had abortions and gone on to do great things, who are better women for being childless (for now). I'm pro-choice for the new moms and dads I know who were able to actively choose to become parents. I'm pro-choice for all those babies... born knowing they're 100 percent loved and wanted."[12]
No woman "wants" an abortion; it is only the least bad alternative Women do not "want" abortions. They find themselves in a position in which abortion is the less bad between bad alternatives. This argument is important in explaining that abortion is not about a malicious desire to "kill babies" or even to express their right to choose; it is about allowing women to make the best choice that they can.
Abortion advocates wrongly value "quality of life" over "sanctity of life"Ronald Reagan, "Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation", Human Life Review, Spring 1984 - "As a nation, we must choose between the sanctity of life ethic and the 'quality of life' ethic. I have no trouble identifying the answer our nation has always given to this basic question, and the answer that I hope and pray it will give in the future."[15]
Child-rearing is a beautiful, natural process, not a burdenVictoria Woodhull, first woman to run for U.S. President, member of the Equal Rights Party, in Woodhull's and Claffin's Weekly (September 23, 1871). - "Child-bearing is not a disease, but a beautiful office of nature. But to our faded-out, sickly, exhausted type of women, it is a fearful ordeal. Nearly every child born is an unwelcome guest. Abortion is the choice of evils for such women."[16]
On abortion, the issue is when love, not life, beginsRobert Casey, former Governor of Pennsylvania - "When we look to the unborn child, the real issue is not when life begins, but when love begins."[17] The point is, since we should be capable of loving a fetus (a human being in the making), we should subsequently provide that being with rights and protections. It matters not what we call the unborn child (a "baby", "human", "life"); as long as we love it, we should protect it. And, an attitude and life-style of love and acceptance is superior to an attitude and life-style of fear and regret.
Abortion worsens parenting by devaluing the parent-child relationship If an unborn child is seen as expendable, the parent comes to believe that their relationship with the unborn child is conditional and non-binding. During child-rearing, this philosophy can be very damaging for the quality of parenting.
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Safety: Are abortions safe? What about legal versus illegal abortions?
[]
[]
Yes
"Back alley" abortions are more frequent when abortion is illegal. Back-alley abortions are abortions performed illegally on the "black-market" when abortion is generally illegal. Back-alley abortions are less regulated and more likely to result in the death or harming of the mother.
Legal abortions are much safer than black-market abortions.Mary Calderone, founder of SIECUS and medical director of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, "Illegal abortion as a public health problem," American Journal of Public Health, July 1960 - "90% of illegal abortions are being done by physicians. Call them what you will, abortionists or anything else, they are still physicians, trained as such; . . . They must do a pretty good job if the death rate is as low as it is . . . Abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous, because it is being done well by physicians."[18]
Abortion is no more risky or harmful than ordinary birth. While abortion has it's risks, it's important that we compare it against the alternative, which is going through with giving birth. This probably entails just as many risks, if not more, as an abortion.
[]
[]
No
Abortions are very risky and hazardous to the womenWarren Hern, abortion practitioner and author of Abortion Practice (1990), the textbook most widely used in the United States to teach abortion to medical personnel - "In medical practice, there are few surgical procedures given so little attention and so underrated in its potential hazard as abortion."
Preventing "back alley" abortions are no reason to legalize abortion. That the illegality of abortion may lead to back-alley abortions is not a reason to legalize abortion. This argument has nothing to do with the core moral principles underlying the debate (regarding life and rights), so should not be considered.
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Depression: Are women usually content with a past decision to abort?
[]
[]
Yes
Post-abortion syndrome is not a medically recognized syndrome: The American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association do not recognize PAS.
It is better to regret not having a child than regret having one It is clear that abortion is a choice between evils. Therefore, the question is not whether a woman will regret having an abortion; she will. The reason abortion is justified is that a woman will sometimes regret having a child more than she will regret having an abortion. Abortion is sometimes justified as the better choice between evils.
Many women are disturbed by their abortions but remain pro-choiceRosemary Candelario, director of Massachusetts Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, September 2001 - "I think the fear in the [abortion rights] movement is if we admit abortion is hard for some women, then we're admitting that it's wrong, which is totally not the case. I've heard from women who are having problems dealing with their abortion who are still ardently pro-choice."[19]
Risk-taking and disorders lead to abortions; not the opposite This argument is partly a response to studies that claim that there is a correlation between abortion and mental disorders. The point is that this might be true, but the causality of this correlation must be determined. It may be that those with existing mental disorders are more likely to take risks that lead to the need for abortion, and that this is the explanation for the correlation, rather than that abortion leads to mental disorders.
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]