In this essay, I will argue that the young woman can have an abortion (if she wants to) because of two reasons: 1) she will carry the repercussions of a pregnancy on her own, and most importantly, 2) it is part of her right to decide whether or not she wants to carry a fetus in her body until full term. At the same time, I will include arguments that will explicate why an abortion can be seen as morally wrong for a woman in her situation such as the act of killing a life is morally wrong and the loss of life of a fetus should trump the woman’s right to choose what she wants to do with her body. In this essay, abortion is defined as the deliberate termination of a pregnancy (Kulcyzcki, 2017).
Firstly, I believe that the woman should have an abortion, if she wanted to, because she will carry the repercussions of a pregnancy on her own. This is concurrent with a utilitarian’s stance, which states that an action is morally right if it produces the most utility or happiness (Duignan & West, 2017). In this situation, I strongly believe that an unwanted pregnancy will lead to less utility for the woman because carrying the pregnancy and child bearing are decisions that will massively impact her life in the long term. The pregnancy could result in the loss of jobs due to discrimination from employers who believe that pregnant women will not perform efficiently at work (Bell, 2015). Furthermore, the pregnancy can have negative impacts on the woman’s studies because she has to allocate more time (that could have spent on studying) to other concerns such as fetal care. At the same time, this decision could negatively impact the life of the future baby as well. For instance, if the woman opts to put the baby into adoption (as she did not want to have the pregnancy in the first place), it is possible that the baby would not have a quality life due to the lacking nature of the foster care system. Therefore, if the woman believes that keeping the pregnancy will give her more negative consequences than positive ones, it should be morally right for her to have an abortion.
That being said, some might argue that this is not true because the repercussions of a pregnancy are also carried by the father, thus the father should play a significant role in the decision (to get an abortion). This is because it is also part of the father’s right to determine whether the woman should keep the pregnancy. I will depict this dynamic using an example:
Imagine that you are the project manager for the construction of a high rise building in New York. At the same time, you cooperate with a work partner who is also a project manager for the same building and is also the owner of the land (where your building is located). Both of you put in the same amount of effort, time and money into the construction process. However, your work partner suddenly decides to demolish the building without getting your consent, because the building is on his land. Is it morally right for your work partner to do so?
In this example, anti-abortionists would argue that it is not morally right for the work partner to do so because they did not get your consent to do it. This is related to the abortion debate because both partners should have an equal say in the decision to get an abortion because the fetus is made up of both of their genetics. Also, the consequences of the pregnancy (or abortion) will affect the father’s wellbeing as well.
Although there is some bearing to this argument, I believe that the father’s opinions will only matter if the copulation was consensual. If the woman did not consent to the copulation in the first place (such as rape), then the father’s opinion does not have any significance. There is no mention on whether the cause of the woman’s pregnancy, therefore this is difficult to determine in this situation. However, I still believe that it is the woman’s right to determine the final decision on whether to get an abortion, as long as she is transparent about her decision with her partner. This is because the repercussions of carrying the pregnancy itself is only bared by her as it would affect her own physical wellbeing. Unless the woman was deceitful to the partner regarding her decision in some way, then I strongly believe that she should be able to have an abortion, if she wanted to.
Next, I firmly believe that this woman should have an abortion, if she wants to, because it is part of her right to choose whether or not she wants to carry a fetus in her body until full term. This is because the woman has a right to her own body and what she chooses to do with it. For example, it is seen as morally right for a person to get consent before having sex with another person, because the action (having sex) pertains to the use of one’s body. Hence, the woman’s partner (or anyone else) needs her consent to have sex with her. Following this logic, a fetus would need the woman’s consent in order to live and grow in her body because it pertains to the use of her body. Therefore, if the woman does not consent to carrying the fetus in her body, then forcing the woman to carry out the fetus into full term without her consent is morally wrong. In contrast, this would make the act of an abortion as morally right because it is the only other viable alternative to remove the fetus from the woman’s body.
With that said, anti-abortionists might argue against this because they believe abortion is the act of killing a life, and the act of killing a life is morally wrong. To them, there is no difference between the act of killing a human being (murder) and abortion because both human beings and fetuses are life forms thus they have a right to life. By taking away a fetus’s life (through abortion), we are then violating their right to life. Most importantly, they would emphasize that an abortion is morally wrong because by terminating the pregnancy, there is a clear intention to harm and end the fetus’s life. Unless the pregnancy brings medical risks to the woman, then the abortion cannot be justified as morally right.
However, I strongly disagree with this view because there is a relevant difference between murder and abortion. The principle of relevant difference states that if two actions are given different moral stances, then there must be a difference in certain features between the two. According to Thomson (1971), although both actions result in the taking away of a life, murder and abortion differ because a murder violates a human being’s right to live, but an abortion does not. An abortion does not violate a fetus’s right to life because it only denies the fetus the ability to live in its mother’s body and depend on it for nutrients. This can be depicted better through Thomson’s example, the Unconscious Violinist case:
Imagine that you are a young person that has been kidnapped by the Society of Music Lovers. They have kidnapped you because you are the only person that has the blood type to save the famous unconscious violinist (UV). Then, they strapped the UV’s circulatory system into your kidneys to extract the poison out of his blood and they tell you that they need your help for only nine months. Is it morally right for you to unplug yourself from the UV?
Following this example, it is morally right for you to unplug yourself from the UV because they did not have your consent to use your body to save the UV. In this situation, unplugging yourself does not mean that you are denying the violinist’s right to live, but only that you did not consent to the use of your body to save the patient and keep him alive. Therefore, this example is concurrent with Thomson’s view. An abortion does not conflict with the fetus’s right to life (such as the right to life of the dying patient), but it does conflict with the fetus’s need to live in the woman’s body (similar to the patient’s need to your blood samples). Nevertheless, the woman has the right to choose what to do with her body thus she should be able to get an abortion because she did not consent to having a fetus in her body in an unwanted pregnancy.
But, anti-abortionists would argue that abortion is still morally wrong because the loss of a future life from a fetus should trump the right of a woman to choose what to do with her body for nine months. This is because by removing the fetus from its mother’s body, we are preventing it from living a human life like ours (Marquis, 1989). Therefore, the loss of life in this aspect should not be encouraged. At the same time, abortion is immoral to the fetus because the woman was aware of the risks of having sex which includes getting pregnant. Hence, she should take full responsibility of her actions (regardless if she used contraception) because by participating in sexual intercourse, she was aware that there could be a likely chance that she could get pregnant. Therefore, this shows that the woman accepted the risks of pregnancy (even if the woman might not want to be pregnant) which makes abortion inexcusable because it is unfair for the fetus to lose its life due to its mother’s own choice.
Having said that, I believe that this is an extremely flawed argument, because the woman did not consent to become pregnant if she used contraception. Most contraception has a 99 percent effectiveness rate with perfect use (NHS UK, 2017), thus the likelihood of an unwanted pregnancy to occur while using contraception is extremely slim. The use of contraception itself shows that the woman was unwilling to be pregnant because it is a safety measure against it. Again, this should be easily depicted using an example:
Imagine that you are a traveler going overseas. You are aware that there are several countries that are prone to the spread of diseases. Therefore, before leaving your home country, you went to the hospital to have several vaccine shots in order to protect yourself from any diseases. However, you still contracted a virus while you were in a foreign country which made you sick. Is it morally right for you to get treatment for your sickness and kill the virus?
Following this, it is still morally right for you to get your treatment and kill the virus even though you were aware of the risks. This is because you did not consent to getting sick in the first place and took the necessary safety measures to prevent it. This is similar to abortion because the woman did not consent to being pregnant and used contraception to prevent it despite knowing the risks of copulation, thus it is morally right in this context. Furthermore, the loss of a fetus’s life does not necessarily mean a loss in a human life similar to ours, because a fetus is not a person. Although a fetus is made from biological human cells, this does not make it a person because it does not have self-consciousness, similar to our blood cells (Warren, 1973). Thus, it is an exaggeration that an abortion would result into a loss of life such as ours because the fetus has not developed its own personhood.
In conclusion, I reiterate my belief that the woman should be able have an abortion, but it is only morally right for her to do so if she has taken the necessary steps to prevent the pregnancy (if the copulation was consensual) and she is transparent with her decision. This is due to the fact that she has the fundamental right to decide what she wants to do with her body. Moreover, the focus of this debate should not be about whether the fetus is a living organism or not. As long as it is a living organism in the woman’s body, similar to any other organs, then abortion should be morally right because she should be able to terminate the pregnancy if it is detrimental to her overall wellbeing.