Abortion

DP Barrett - The Philosophical Debate About Abortion

Abortion is defined as “the deliberate termination of a pregnancy.” This is when action is deliberately taken to ensure that a child is not born. Abortion should be distinguished from a miscarriage, which is when a pregnancy ends naturally, something which is often very upsetting to the expectant parents and can often be caused by accidents such as falling over. Abortion is an extremely emotive subject which people feel very strongly about, so it is important in discussing abortion to tackle the subject with sensitivity and to listen carefully to the different sides of the debate.

 

Abortion Laws in the UK

Abortion was legalised in the UK in 1967. One of the reasons for this was to stop dangerous ‘backstreet abortions’ – illegal abortions which were often damaging to health or fatal. However, Britain does not technically advocate a system of ‘abortion on demand’ – there must be a valid reason for the abortion and two doctors must agree to the operation before it can be carried out; technically there should be occasions when doctors deny women an abortion, however, this rarely if ever happens. Viability is when the baby is likely to survive if born prematurely, the current time being set at 24 weeks. Before viability an abortion can be performed on one of the following four grounds:

1) The mother’s health is in danger

2) The baby is severely disabled

3) The baby will cause stress to the mother (e.g. if she was raped)

4) The baby will cause stress to the mother’s family (e.g. financial burden)

However, after 24 weeks when the baby is viable the law becomes stricter and an abortion is only legally allowed for reasons (1) and (2), if the mother’s health is in danger or if the baby is severely disabled

The point of viablility used to be 28 weeks, however, due to improved medical technology this had to be changed to 24 weeks. It has been known for babies to survive when born prematurely at 22 or even 21 weeks, however, the chances of this are extremely remote and the child is likely to suffer from lifelong health issues. There are approximately 185,000 abortions per year in the UK, most of which happen before 12 weeks on the grounds of the mother’s psychological wellbeing. Many abnormalities, such as spine or heart defects, cannot be seen until scans at 20 weeks, leading to later abortions. There are around 200 abortions after 24 weeks per year. Early term abortions are performed by extracting the foetus up a tube, often killing it first by dismemberment. Late term abortions generally involve killing the foetus with drugs before labour is induced and the dead foetus given birth to.

Three Basic Positions

There are three basic positions that a person can take concerning the morality of abortion:

1) Abortion is always wrong.

2) Abortion is sometimes wrong, sometimes right, depending on the circumstances.

3) Abortion is never wrong.

There are many people who believe that abortion is always wrong no matter what the situation might be. This is an absolutist position and it is famously the position of the Roman Catholic Church. This view is often called the ‘Pro Life’ view because those who adopt this position generally use the idea of Sanctity of Life as a key principle. It is sometimes also called the conservative view as it is the traditional view on abortion.

On the other end of the perspective there are those who believe that there is nothing morally wrong with abortion, and therefore that a woman is always entitled to have an abortion if she wishes to have one. This is also an absolutist position because it rejects the importance of circumstances, the morality and principles stay the same regardless of context. This position is usually called the ‘Pro Choice’ view because it emphasises the importance of the mother having the choice to do as she wishes with her own body and her own life. It is sometimes also called the liberal view as it believe that people should be free to make their own choices.

We must be aware of the language that is being used here because both of the terms ‘Pro Life’ and ‘Pro Choice’ are effectively forms of propaganda. Each wishes to get across a positive message about their perspective and to imply that the other side of the debate is ‘Anti Life’ or ‘Anti Choice’ respectively.

There is a middle position, according to which abortion is sometimes right and sometimes wrong depending on the circumstances. Many people would argue that it is wrong to kill an innocent foetus unless there is a very good reason, for instance, an ectopic pregnancy where the foetus is growing in the mother’s fallopian tubes and could kill her. This is a relativist position and strictly speaking it is the position of the British law. It is also the position of the Church of England which believes that the life of the foetus is precious and needs to be protected, but that sometimes consideration for the mother or her family must take precedence. The Church argues that abortion may be allowed in circumstances such as rape, severe disability, and risk to the mother. In this case there is an attempt to balance ideas of the sanctity of life with alternative ideas such as quality of life and the free will of the mother.

Of course, whether abortion is morally wrong and whether it should be illegal are two different things. Many people argue that extramarital affairs are wrong, but this does not mean we would outlaw them and see them legally sanctioned, e.g. with prison. Some argue that abortion is similar, perhaps it is wrong, but it should be allowed all the same.

Reasons why people want abortions

There are numerous reasons why a woman may wish to have an abortion, and you may feel that some are more morally justified than others. Here are some examples, but this is not an exhaustive list:

• The baby is disabled and will have a poor quality of life.

• The baby is disabled and the parents feel they will not cope.

• The baby will be so disabled that it will die shortly after birth (e.g. a heart defect).

• The mother is very young (e.g. 13).

• The mother was raped.

• The father has abandoned the mother and she does not want his child.

• The mother’s life is in danger because of the pregnancy.

• Contraceptives were used, but failed, resulting in an unwanted pregnancy.

• The pregnancy will interfere with the life plans of the mother, e.g. with her career, or education, or perhaps with her holiday plans.

• The mother / parents cannot afford to raise the child.

• The mother / parents themselves are disabled.

• The mother / parents already have children and do not want more.

• The mother / parents do not want any children at all.

• The mother / parents want a boy and the baby is a girl (or vice versa).

• The baby is a product of incest.

It is important to realise that there are alternatives to abortion such as adoption or fostering, however, it is also important to realise that these are not very easy options to take for many prospective parents, for example, adoption means giving birth to the child and then giving them away to be raised by someone else, but once the baby is born and has been held in the arms of the mother it may be very difficult or heart breaking to give the child away. A mother who gives her baby away may spend her whole life feeling like a failure and wondering where her child is and what it is doing; psychologically she may be better off simply not giving birth to the child at all. Moreover, many children given up for adoption never get adopted and instead grow up in care with no specific family to call their own.

Teleological views on abortion: Utilitarianism

The debate about abortion often centres on principles, which means that it is often centred around deontological considerations such as the rights of the foetus, mother, and father. However, teleological thinkers have much to say about the debate.

According to Jeremy Bentham what makes a being morally relevant is the fact that it can feel pleasure and pain; in his view this meant that animals were also worthy of moral consideration to some extent. Early on in pregnancy a foetus has little or no ability to feel pleasure or pain, and no awareness of its environment, so it is not morally relevant to a Utilitarian. However, after a certain point foetuses are able to feel pain, and they are aware of sensations such their parent’s voices. This at least makes them morally relevant to some degree. However, being sentient does not necessarily mean that the foetus can never be killed, after all, under Act Utilitarianism people can be killed if it brings about “the greatest good.”

An Act Utilitarian will consider the individual case of abortion and whether it will cause happiness or unhappiness. Factors such as the potential quality of life for the child, its mother’s psychological state, and the effects on the mother’s family could all justify abortions due to their effects on levels of happiness. Abortions could be justified to prevent a mother from dying, to prevent a family from falling in to poverty, and so on, but on the other hand, an Act Utilitarian might actually suggest that sometimes a woman should keep a baby she does not want, for example, to give it to her sister who cannot have children of her own.

In many ways it was teleological thinking which led to the legalisation of abortion in the UK in 1967. Many women were so desperate not to have children that they were driven to undergo unlicensed and unsafe ‘backstreet abortions’; these could often be seriously damaging to health or even fatal so it was seen as important to end this. In cases where the mother could die from pregnancy it was argued there was no reason to prevent abortion since this would only lead to misery and suffering, and it will generally lead to the death of the baby too anyway. It was also argued that abortion could help to lower crime rates and poverty rates by helping to prevent families from expanding beyond their financial means, especially in poorer areas. Statistics seem to suggest that this has worked, for example, in areas of America where abortion has been made freely available both poverty and crime rates have dropped. Additionally, allowing abortion has helped to free many women from the misery of having to carry and raise children that they have no wish for. It has also helped to give women a greater control over their own lives and so it has increased opportunities for them in terms of their careers, education, and social standing relative to men.

We can see that there have been Utilitarian benefits to legalising abortion, however, it has not been without its downsides. Having an abortion can cause serious strain to a relationship, especially if the father does not want the child aborted, and in some cases mothers regret their choice and feel guilty about it, thus leading to unhappiness or depression. There has also been violence due to abortion; many people view abortion as murder, and they see the number of abortions going on in the world as equivalent to genocide. This has led to violence as some Pro Life campaigners have taken it upon themselves to save these children and punish the abortionists, whom they see as mass murderers. This is particularly prevalent in North America; since 1993 there have been 9 people murdered for their involvement with abortion in the USA, as well as numerous attempted murders, and since 1977 there have been over 40 bombings and over 170 arsons at abortion clinics.

Deontological approaches to abortion

Deontological theories concentrate on the principles involved in moral issues. There are principles which support abortion and principles which oppose abortion, for example, there is the clash between the ideas of Sanctity of Life and Quality of Life.

Sanctity of Life is the idea that life is special and sacred, and therefore should be respected, so that human life is not to be damaged or destroyed. The idea of Sanctity of Life is often connected to religious perspectives because the view is taken that God created life and that we are special because has set human life aside as valuable. However, it is perfectly coherent to believe that human life is sacred based on secular ideas, such as the view that all human beings have “reason, conscience, and dignity” (UN Declaration of Rights), and therefore that we are all valuable.

Quality of Life, on the other hand is about how good and enjoyable and worthwhile a person’s life is. It is generally argued that factors such as poverty, disability, and pain detract from someone’s quality of life. Some people argue that it is better not to live at all than to live a bad life; this argument is constantly used in the debate about euthanasia, with those in favour arguing that it is better to be dead than to live in permanent pain. The same idea is often applied to abortion with the argument being that it is better not to be born than to live an unsatisfying or painful life. Meanwhile those who believe in the Sanctity of Life would say that all life is valuable even if it is not entirely enjoyable, and that all lives have equal value whether they are rich or poor, abled or disabled, etc.

Deontological philosophers may also discuss the idea of rights. It will often be argued that the unborn child has a Right to Life, and therefore that their life cannot be taken away from them for any reason. Just as we cannot kill a baby, child, adult human being, so too we cannot kill an unborn human being, especially since a foetus is completely morally innocent and is incapable of having committed any wrongful acts. Others might say it is silly to say a foetus has a right to life when its life depends on its mother and its live birth is not a certainty.

A deontological view which supports abortion is that the mother has a Right to Choose what happens to her own body and that she has a right to determine her own future, for example, she has the right to choose between having a child she will have to care for over a period of 18 or more years, or whether she would rather concentrate on her career or education. Here we have a rights clash between the rights of the mother and those of the unborn child, and it is difficult to see whose rights matter more, if the unborn child even has any, that is. For some it is the rights of the unborn child that are most important because matters of life and death are more important than those of choice and lifestyle. Meanwhile some philosophers argue that the foetus does not have any rights at all because it is not yet a proper person and so the only relevant consideration is the wishes of the pregnant woman.

Is a foetus a person / when does human life begin?

The idea that a foetus has a right to life, and so cannot be killed, relies on the idea that it is already a ‘person’ capable of possessing rights. Some argue that since it is a human being, even if only a small and underdeveloped one, it should be considered a ‘person’ and have rights from the very beginning at conception. Others argue that it only counts as a ‘person’ part way through pregnancy, or perhaps even at birth.

The development of a human being prior to birth is very gradual. At the point of conception an egg is fertilised by a sperm, producing a zygote, which is simply a single cell organism. Following this the zygote implants in the womb lining and begins to grow thanks to cell division and it becomes an embryo. In many cases fertilised eggs are expelled from the body due to the menstrual cycle so that the potential mother may have a miscarriage without even realising it. The morning after pill tends to work this way, by breaking down the womb lining, so there is a debate as to whether it is a contraceptive or an abortive. Many people are fine with contraception but against abortion because contraception simply prevents eggs and sperm mixing and so prevents the creation of a life, whereas abortion actually terminates a life after it has been created. After two months of growth the embryo becomes called a foetus because it has a human shape and all of its vital systems, and it only needs to grow bigger. After 6 months (or 24 weeks) the unborn child has a good chance of survival, with medical help, but before this time there is little chance of survival, so this point in pregnancy is called viability and the laws on abortion after viability are much stricter. Below are some of the key stages in foetal development:

• Day 1 - Conception: egg and sperm join to form a single cell organism (a zygote).
• Day 7 - By this point the zygote has become a multi-celled organism (a blastocyst) and should have implanted in the lining of the womb.
• 2 weeks - The Primative Streak emerges as cells in the embryo begin to differentiate.
• 3 weeks - This is the approximate time that the heart starts to beat.
• 6 weeks - Brainwaves recorded and arms, legs, eyes, and other key features present.
• 8 weeks - The cartilage skeleton begins to turn to bone. All human human features are present, but they are underdeveloped, and the lifeform may now be called a 'foetus' instead of an 'embryo.'
• 10 weeks - The brain and nerve fibres necessary for the foetus to feel pain are now developed.
• 12 weeks - This is the approximate time that many mothers start to feel the foetus moving.
• 16 weeks - There is evidence that at this stage the foetus can respond to sound and light.
• 21 weeks - Although rare, it has been known for foetuses to survive birth at this stage of development.
• 24 weeks - Viability: this is the stage when the foetus is considered to be developed enough to survive, with medical intervention, if it is born early, although survival rates are not high.
• 39 weeks - Birth: this is generally when birth occurs, although babies are regularly born a couple of weeks early or late. Twins are often born several weeks early.

Many people argue that the foetus only becomes a proper person at birth, before this it is dependent upon its mother and cannot exist in its own right. This would indicate that abortion is acceptable anytime during pregnancy. Others argue that when the unborn child reaches viability it should now be considered to have a right to life, because it could survive if it was born, and so abortion should not be allowed after 24 weeks. Most abortions happen before 12 weeks and there are campaigners who wish for abortion to be banned after this period with the exception of emergencies, since the foetus is able to feel pain and move by this stage, if not earlier. For some life starts with movement, or brainwaves, or the heart beating, and for many life starts right back at conception, after all, from this point it does have its own unique DNA.

One suggestion from religious perspectives is that human life properly begins at ‘ensoulment’ – when God places a soul within the foetus. Religious groups disagree on when this happens, for example, Catholics now believe that it happens at conception, whilst Muslims commonly believe that it happens at 40 days (just less than 6 weeks). Another traditional position was that it happened around 12 weeks during the ‘quickening’ when the mother first starts to feel the baby moving.

 

Michael Tooley - Is a Foetus A Person?

Michael Tooley considers the ethical problems of abortion in his article Abortion and Infanticide; what follows below is an explanation of the key ideas in this article.

Many people consider the question ‘is a foetus human?’ when they are looking in to the abortion debate, the presumption being that if it is human then it has a right to life and should not be killed. Some say it is not human until its heart starts beating, or until it becomes viable, or until it’s born. However, it seems quite obvious that it is a human, after all, it has human DNA and it is certainly not a frog or tree. In philosophy we consider that there is a difference between the word ‘human’ and the word ‘person.’ The word ‘human’ refers to any member of the specific species homo sapiens, our species; it is merely a biological word. Meanwhile the word ‘person’ refers to any creature which deserves to have moral considerations and rights; it is therefore an evaluative word because it has moral implications. To illustrate the difference, an alien such as Spock or Worf from Star Trek is most certainly not a human being, but since they can think, speak, feel pain and pleasure, and so on, we would have to say that they were ‘persons’ just like us and we would also have to say that they deserved to be treated morally, for instance, given rights to free-speech, life, and freedom from torture. So properly considered it seems that our question should not be ‘when does human life begin?’ so much as ‘when does a foetus become a person?’

Tooley identifies two extreme philosophical positions on abortion, although he accepts that it is often the case that people find themselves in the middle:

The Conservative Position (anti-abortion): abortion is only permissible to save the life of the mother (the Islamic position), and perhaps not even then (the Catholic position).

• The foetus is a person
• Killing a person is seriously wrong (murder)
• Abortion kills a foetus
• Therefore, abortion is seriously wrong (murder)

The Liberal Position (pro-abortion): abortion is the mother’s choice.

• The foetus is not a person.
• There is nothing particularly wrong with destroying it.
• The mother is a person.
• The rights of a person to self-determination, particularly over their own bodies, are important.
• Therefore, abortion is acceptable.

Tooley points out that the Liberal (Pro Choice) position relies on the idea that we can make a neat cut off point at which stage the unborn child becomes a person, and before which it has no rights at all, thus allowing for abortion to take place. For some this is birth, for others it is viability, or another point such as the development of the nervous system. However, it is seemingly impossible to draw such a line and say that the foetus has suddenly become a person. This is because the process of development is gradual. A new born baby after 39 weeks of development is not so different from a baby at 38 weeks, and a baby at 38 weeks development is not so different from a baby at 37 weeks of development, and so on all the way back to conception. Each daily change is so small that it should make no difference as to whether the foetus has a right to life or not. Therefore, the Liberal Position seems untenable – any cut off point we make will be arbitrary and unfair. Essentially, if it is acceptable to kill a foetus in the womb then it would also be acceptable to kill newborn babies: infanticide. If we maintain that infanticide is wrong then we must also forbid abortion.

Judith Jarvis-Thompson refutes this argument by saying that it is an example of the ‘slippery slope’ fallacy. There is also a gradual change from seed to tree, but none the less, an acorn is not an oak tree, and similarly an egg is not a chicken, and dough mixture is not bread until it has been properly cooked. It may be difficult to draw a cut-off point somewhere between conception and birth, but this does not mean a zygote and a babe in arms are the same thing and entitled to the same rights and treatment.

Tooley argues that what the Liberal Position needs is a proper definition of personhood which shows that foetuses do not count as persons, such that abortion can be morally justified. Generally speaking the idea of personhood is connected to being self-conscious and sentient, this is why we would count intelligent aliens as ‘persons’ and possibly some higher animals such as chimpanzees, but certainly not plants and the majority of animals. Tooley tries to put forward a possible definition of the word ‘person’ which is the following:

X is a person if, and only if, X has a conception of itself as a continuing subject of experiences. This requires self-consciousness.

The basic idea behind this is that the difference between a person and a non-person is self-awareness, which includes awareness of one’s desires. If it is impossible for you to desire something, then you cannot be said to have a right to it, for example, if a child or mentally ill person cannot understand anything about politics then it seems wrong to say that they ought to have a right to vote. You have to be self-aware in order to desire your continued existence because self-awareness means being aware that you are alive in the here and now, that you have a history, and that you have a potential future. Since foetuses are not aware in this way it follows that they cannot have a right to life, thus justifying abortion. In the views of some people there is nothing wrong with abortion at all, it is no worse than removing useless tissue.

However, this leaves us with a serious problem, the problem of marginal cases: there are many human beings who are not self-conscious in this way including those in comas, the severely mentally handicapped, those with advanced dementia, and young children. Young children are not self-aware in this manner until they are at least one or two year old. It seems, therefore, that if a foetus is not a person and can be killed without reservation, then it must also be acceptable to kill infants of up to two years old. This is called infanticide, and whilst it is common in many cultures it is rejected as monstrously immoral in Western culture. The Liberal position therefore seems untenable, killing unborn children can only be accepted if we also accept the killing of infants, which seemingly we cannot.

Next Tooley analyses the Conservative (Pro Life) position. According to this position the unborn child is already a person from conception, and therefore abortion is the murder of an innocent person who possesses a right to life. However, Tooley finds it unconvincing to argue that a zygote or embryo could possibly be considered a person and given full rights, especially when animals such as dogs or chimpanzees (who have brains and can feel pain etc.) are not considered to be persons and are not accorded a right to life. Tooley considers that since a zygote, embryo, or foetus is clearly not a ‘person’ yet those with a Conservative view will often turn to the Potentiality Principle to justify their case against abortion, which Tooley describes thusly:

If property P endows a thing with a right to life, and X has the potential to develop property P, then X has the right not to be denied its potential to develop P.

The Potentiality Principle basically says that personhood is needed to have a right to life, but that whilst a foetus does not have this vital property, since it will develop self-consciousness (etc.) we ought to leave it alone to develop and treat it as if it already has a right to life. However, Tooley argues that this position is untenable. This is like saying that because a trainee chef has the potential to become a head chef in several years’ time, we should already give him the pay and conditions of a head chef. Or again, it is like saying that because a five year old has the potential to one day go to university, we should already give him a degree.

In summary, then, the Pro Choice or ‘Liberal’ position on abortion can only be accepted if we also accept that it is ok to kill babies. Meanwhile, the Pro Life or ‘Conservative’ position is based on a flawed principle which makes little sense. This means that the issue of abortion is a difficult dilemma to solve because both alternatives seem completely untenable.

Judith Jarvis Thomson - The Right To Choose

Judith Jarvis Thomson wrote an article called In Defence of Abortion in which she discusses the key philosophical issues attached to abortion. Thomson states that in the typical anti-abortion argument the crucial premise is a claim that the foetus is a fully human person right from the point of conception, and therefore that the unborn child must not be terminated, even if its life is against the wishes of the mother to be. She maintains that this is false, and that it rests of fallacious reasoning (the slippery slope argument). However, for the sake of argument she allows that the foetus might be a person. It is her contention that classifying the foetus as a person does not settle the debate as it may still be that abortion can be justified anyway.

Thomson asks you imagine that you find yourself hooked up to a famous unconscious violinist. If he can't use your kidneys for nine months, he'll die. You are in this position not because you agreed to be but because the Society of Music Lovers kidnapped you. All the same, the violinist himself is perfectly innocent; he had no part in creating your predicament. So what do you do, stay hooked up to the man, who clearly does have a right to life, or unhook yourself and leave? Thomson thinks it is far from obvious that you are obliged to stay hooked up to the violinist. Granted, the violinist has a right to life, but it is not at all clear that it ‘trumps’ your right to control what happens to your body. Unplugging yourself from the violinist will indeed mean that he dies, but Thomson believes that you do not have any obligation to stay hooked up with him, his life is not your concern and you have every right to unplug yourself and go about your business.

Essentially Thomson is arguing that even if the foetus is a person and has a right to life it does not automatically follow that abortion cannot be allowed. Supposed rights often clash; celebrities and public figures claim they have a right to privacy, but newspapers would claim that the public have a right to know what these people are up to. Here we have a rights clash and it is not always certain which side to agree with. Thomson is arguing that we ought not to automatically side with the rights of the foetus, it could be that the rights of the mother ‘trump’ those of the foetus: she should have freedom to choose what happens to her own body and her own life. Her body is like a life support for the foetus, and it will die without her, but she has every right to unplug herself and to let the foetus die.

One problem with Thomson’s violinist thought experiment could well be that it is more analogous to rape than an ordinary pregnancy, which is far more likely to be the result of failed contraception, a drunken one night stand, or a sober fit of passion. In these cases the sex is consensual. The example can be slightly modified, however; imagine that the woman is aware that the Society of Music Lovers is on the prowl for someone to hook up to the violinist but she decides to go out and risk it anyway for the sake of seeing her friends and enjoying herself. This is much more like the average case of accidental pregnancy. Men are free to enjoy sex without the repercussion of getting pregnant, so why shouldn’t women also be free to enjoy it without fear? It might be argued that a woman’s freedom of choice over her body was exercised when she chose to have sex, and that she knew the risks and should now have the baby. However, as far as Thomson is concerned, her violinist analogy shows that every woman has the right to do what she wishes with her body.

Christian Views

Many of the people who campaign against abortion are religious, so no report about the morality of abortion would be complete without looking at religious views on the debate. The Bible does not mention abortion at all, however, it gives various teachings which can be applied to abortion and which strongly suggest that abortion is wrong. Firstly it states in Genesis that “God made man in his own image” (Genesis 1:27) which suggests that each person is special and that life is sacred and not to be destroyed. Meanwhile, Psalm 139 states “you created my innermost being: you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made… All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of the came to be.” This strongly suggests that each individual person is a creation of God, and it seems obvious that to destroy something which has been created by God is wrong. The passage also indicates that each person is unique and that God has a plan for each person’s life, so that abortion would be interfering with God’s plans for our world. The idea that God creates each person is also important when thinking about abortion of disabled foetuses, because according to these passages God has plans for these people too, and they also are special and made in God’s image.

Christians have traditionally opposed abortion, with Christian writings as early as the 4^th century declaring that any measures taken to kill an unborn child were sinful. John Calvin wrote in the 16^th century that abortion was more horrible than killing a man in his own house. Today the Roman Catholic Church still considers all abortions to be totally morally wrong, and it is not permitted even in cases when the mother would die from the pregnancy. This is an absolutist view. Cardinal Keith O’Brian said the following on the subject: “We are killing in our country [Scotland] the equivalent of a classroom of kids every single day. Can you imagine that? Two Dunblane massacres a day in our country going on and on. And when's it going to stop? I can't change the teachings of Jesus Christ. I can't change the Ten Commandments. That's what I'm ordained to teach and to preach: Thou shalt not kill.”

Meanwhile, the Church of England and some other Protestant groups believe that a relativist approach must be taken. Yes the foetus should be viewed as important and as a creation of God, but we should also take in to consideration the life and needs of the prospective mother and her family. If a woman will die from the pregnancy then it is surely ridiculous to forbid abortion based on the idea that life is sacred. Similarly, Jesus taught that Christians should try to love people and alleviate their suffering, and in many cases this might mean freeing a woman from the burden of motherhood that lies ahead of her: “The Church of England combines strong opposition to abortion with a recognition that there can be – strictly limited – conditions under which it may be morally preferable to any available alternative.”

Gender Issues: Men Vs. Women

It can be argued that one of the central issues in the abortion debate is that of gender, in particular, who has the power and control. It can also be argued that men and women often think in very different ways and that this makes them perceive the issue differently.

Throughout history women have been subordinated to men; they have been denied rights, the vote, education, and various other freedoms. In many ways women have been treated like property, or like they are naturally there to serve the needs of men. For example, the Protestant reformer Martin Luther (16^th century) said that women should look after the house and give birth to children, and that if a woman dies in child birth it does not matter because that’s what she is there for. Feminists are those who believe that women should be equal to men, and for many feminists access to contraception and abortion are crucial to the freedom and empowerment that they seek. After all, men do not have to suffer the burden of carrying a child, and it is generally the women who end up as primary carers for their children. Pregnancy can often be very painful and even leave permanent damage. Many women love being mothers, but not all of them want to be, and so women should have the freedom to choose, rather than being simply seen as machines to produce children.

Gender Issues: Fathers' rights

Suppose that a woman gets pregnant and that she does not wish to have the child, but that the father desperately wants the child, and that he is willing to care for the mother throughout the pregnancy and to raise the child by himself. Under UK laws he has no right whatsoever to stop the woman from having an abortion if she so chooses. He may try to persuade her not to have an abortion, but it is entirely the choice of the mother what will happen, fathers literally have no power here. In the USA there have been occasions when a court has ruled that an abortion should be delayed in order to give the potential father more time to discuss the issue with the pregnant woman, but it has never stopped women from aborting.

Many men feel that they deserve some kind of say in what happens to the unborn child that they have helped to create, however, it is difficult to see how their wishes could ever be taken in to account when they differ from those of the mother, after all, it is her body which will have to house and give birth to the child, surely she should have the greater half of the say? Some would argue that there are double standards being portrayed here; if a man desperately wants the child a woman can legally deprive him of it, and yet if he does not want the child she can not only force it upon him, but also he is legally obliged to support his unwanted offspring. As Armin Brott put it: “a woman can legally deprive a man of his right ot become a parent, or force him to become one against his will.”

Carol Gilligan: The Ethics of Care

In her book In A Different Voice, Carol Gilligan discussed the issues raised by abortion based on her discussions with 27 women considering abortions. Traditional ethical approaches to abortion tend to talk in the language or rights and principles, or in terms of abstract concepts like utility, but according to Carol Gilligan these considerations are out of touch with the moral reasonings of actual women who are considering abortions. For many women in this position the decision is all about what impact having an abortion or not having an abortion will have on their own lives and on the lives of the people around them. They will think about how keeping the child will affect their daily life, their relationships with their family and friends, and in particular how it will affect the lives of their partners and existing children. They will think about the effect that having an abortion will have on their own long term happiness, whether they will feel guilty or not, and what it will mean for their relationship with their partner; some men want children and will walk out on their partners if they fail to provide, whereas in many cases men walk out on their partners shortly after having children because it changes the whole nature of a relationship. What Gilligan is talking about here is what we could term an ‘Ethics of Care’ because it is not concerned with principles and justice, but instead it is concerned with feelings and relationships. Gilliagan argues that men tend to think in terms of principles and utility, but if we want to properly understand and engage with the abortion debate we have to look at actual women’s perspectives.

Abortion and discrimination against the disabled

According to the UK’s abortion laws it is perfectly acceptable to have an abortion on the grounds that a baby will, if born, be physically or mentally handicapped. There are some foetuses with such severe defects that they will not survive past a few weeks after birth, and some will even die during pregnancy. In these cases perhaps termination is the kindest option for all involved. However, the law has meant that a large amount of children have been aborted because of disability, for example, it is a standard practice to test for Down’s Syndrome in pregnancy and many parents opt to abort children with Down’s. Whilst Down’s is life limiting in various ways, those with the syndrome would say that they can still have fulfilling lives, and also, they can bring out the best in those around them, compassion and humanity.

Firstly, it seems to suggest that life as a disabled person is of less value than life as an able bodied or ‘normal’ person, and therefore that disabled people are not as valuable as those who are fully enabled. This is considered to be offensive by many disabled people. If someone were to suggest that disabled people should all be killed, for example, to save the government the money of caring for them, then we would reject this as morally outrageous, but are we not doing something similar in aborting the disabled?

Secondly it is often argued that since life as a disabled person would be traumatic or filled with difficulties, it would be better for the child not to be born at all – it is better to have no life than a bad life. But disabled people refute this claim and say that they would rather be alive and disabled than not be alive at all, and they would also claim that they are perfectly capable of having happy and fulfilling lives. Therefore, aborting the disabled is making decisions on behalf of the disabled child which are not the right of the parents to make, and which are based on a faulty point of view.

A further argument against aborting the disabled is that doing so would be an example of eugenics, which means it is an attempt to ‘better’ the human race by rooting out undesirable genes. Eugenics is a Greek word which actually means ‘good breeding’ and it is something we have been doing to animals and plants for centuries, making sure that some get to breed whilst others do not. This is how we have managed to create new breeds of dog and varieties of tulips and roses. However, doing this with human beings is extremely controversial as it openly shows the belief that some people are better than others, it is a rejection of equality and the view that every life matters.

Another problem with allowing the abortion of disabled foetuses is that it is difficult to decide what counts as a severe disability, for example, there have been instanced of prospective parents aborting children who would have been born with a cleft palate. This can mean that the baby has a disjointed upper lip and that the roof of their mouth does not properly develop leaving a gap into the nasal cavity, however, this problem can be quite simply resolved by a minor operation which only leaves a small scar, the only other problem being that the person might have a slight lisp. Joanna Jepson was training to be an Anglican priest when she heard that a woman had aborted her unborn child for this reason, and having had the problem herself she was outraged at this and reported it to the police as an example of an illegal and unjustified abortion. Jepson declared “to take away lives for that reason is completely abhorrent. Having been in that position myself, is society saying I should have died?” Her complain was not upheld and no charges were brought against the doctors.

However, there are those who would argue that we can justify the aborting of disabled foetuses, and that this does not just have to mean discrimination. Abortion is allowed on grounds of psychological trauma to the mother or family; some parents may not wish for the hard work and stress that can be involved with raising a disabled child. Raising a disabled child can be extremely difficult, as well as being much more expensive. In some cases the life of the child will be very short, leading to heartbreak for the parents, whilst in other cases the parents will have to care for the child for their entire life, as the child will never be independent. Therefore, it might be argued that aborting a disabled foetus can be allowed on the grounds that it will protect the mother or family from numerous psychological traumas.

Another argument would be out of choice: when parents choose to have a baby they have certain preconceptions about their children. They may have dreams of playing sports with their kids, teaching them to read and write and paint, seeing them grow up and achieve highly at school or university, and one day see them move away and start their own families. When it is discovered that the child will be disabled suddenly all of these dreams are smashed. The analogy is distasteful perhaps, but in some ways having a disabled child could be likened to being given a fish for Christmas when what you really wanted was a dog. When the reason for wanting a child is removed, why still have that child? Of course, this kind of reasoning could also justify abortion on grounds of gender, something which is illegal and which many people do indeed view as discriminatory and wrong; is there really a difference?

Final Thoughts

There is no simple answer to the abortion debate, not least because there are so many grey areas and contrasting principles, however, it is clear that it is an important issue which rouses strong feelings. Should abortion be allowed always, often, rarely, or never? And even if it is wrong, does the government have the right to control or prohibit it? These are the issues you will have to try and solve when forming your opinion on abortion.