Abortion is one of the most highly debated issues within the bioethics community, with the majority of people falling somewhere in between complete prohibition and complete un-regulation. I am part of this majority, believing that neither absolute prohibition nor completely un-regulating abortions is the correct moral answer. Abortion is morally permissible if and only if it falls under certain circumstances; what pregnancy stage the mother is at, the child will be born with a disabling disease, and if the birth of the child could mean serious harm or the death of the mother. As with any highly debated issues, both sides tend to make strong arguments and therefore these counter arguments must also be refuted to help support and strengthen my approach to the morality of abortion.
One of the most crucial points in arguing either for or against abortion is at which pregnancy stage does life begin. First we must understand what it means to be alive, biology defines life as the distinctive characteristic that separates a living and a non-living organism, specifically the ability to grow, metabolize, respond to stimuli, adapt and reproduce. Taking these requirements for life into consideration, a fetus is not “alive” until around weeks 23-25, which is when the critical part of the brain known as the thalamus is formed and the afferent fibers are connected. The thalamus is a part of the brain that is involved with sensory and motor signal relay and the regulation of consciousness and sleep. Without the thalamus and the afferent fibers, the fetus’ ability to feel pain is non-existent.
The requirements for death can also give insight into when life begins. Someone is considered dead when electroencephalography activity ceases. Electroencephalography measures the activity of the brain and for it to be considered valid must exhibit regular wave patterns. This electroencephalography activity does not appear consistently until around week 25, before this electroencephalography activity is minimal and in short bursts. Considering all of this information, abortion is morally permissible if it occurs before week 25, for after week 25 the fetus is very much alive and can feel pain. The abortion of a living and feeling organism without sufficient cause is morally unacceptable.
One thing that is commonly accepted by both sides of the abortion issue is that every person has a right to life. As I have already discussed, a fetus does not meet the requirements to be considered alive until around week 25, but what about the requirements to be granted personhood? Personhood is not as black and white as alive or dead, therefore there are many different schools of thought on personhood. One school of thought is that “being a person is what gives an individual intrinsic moral worth” , this would effectively exclude a fetus’ right to personhood before it is completely alive (Vaughn).
So if every person has a right to life, does the quality of that life matter? Suppose the mother is infected with HIV, there is a great chance that the baby will also be infected with HIV. Suppose the mother has found out that her child will be born with a crippling disorder that will effectively end any hope for the child to live without constant care throughout its life. In other cases if a decision needs to be made for a non-autonomous person, such as a coma or someone is on life-support, a family member will usually make the choice. This can also be applied to abortions, as the fetus is a non-autonomous person both parents should be able to make that decision. Following an utilitarian viewpoint, the outcome that produces the greatest amount of good would be to allow for abortions in these situations, even after week 25. Abortion in these situations produces the most good as the child does not have to struggle with its disease throughout its life and the parents don’t have to feel guilty for something genetic that they have no control over. It is morally permissible for someone to obtain an abortion if and only if it is before week 25, or if the baby will be born with a crippling disease or disorder.
Of course life is complicated and not everything tends to work out as we would like it to. Some expecting mothers will receive the devastating news that bringing their child to term could result in the death of her and her child. Her family would have to mourn the death of both the mother and her child, but if an abortion were performed they would only have to mourn one life. In situations such as these, the morally permissible utilitarian view would be to allow the mother to obtain an abortion as that would produce the most good for the most people involved. The family doesn’t have to mourn the mother and it gives the mother a chance to find out if there is anything she can do to have another child safely. To force the mother to birth the baby and endanger both of their lives would be morally unacceptable, even after week 25 when the baby is completely alive.
We can not discuss abortion without mentioning the unsettling fact that unfortunately every year there are thousands of women in the U.S that will be raped. Being raped is one of the most stressful and traumatic things that can happen to a person, and it can even cause PTSD. If that rape ends in a pregnancy, birthing the baby for some women could cause even more psychological damage. It would be extremely painful for someone to see their rapist every time they look at their child. To force a woman to birth that child and subsequently relive the most traumatic event of her life everytime she looks at her baby would be morally wrong. For these reasons, it is the morally permissible option for a woman to obtain an abortion if that fetus is the product of rape. This would allows for the most good for the most people. The child doesn’t have to grow up knowing they were the result of a terrible act of violence against an innocent woman, and the mother gets to attempt to move on and she is able to have children when or if she decides to.
Although many strong anti-abortionists will argue that even a fetus that is the product of rape has a right to life, a great counter argument comes in the form of an example from Judith Jarvis Thompson. She says, suppose you have been kidnapped and hooked up to a famous musician in order for your kidneys to help remove poisons from his. The doctor says he had no idea you were kidnapped and is sorry, but you will have to remain attached to the musician for nine months or else he will perish (Vaughn). Although it would be very kind of you to allow him to remain attached to you, you certainly are not required to. If the musicians right to life were to outweigh your right to decide what happens to your body, then you would not be morally correct in disconnecting him. This is preposterous as you did not volunteer to be attached to this person for nine months, therefore you are not required to keep him alive. This correlates with cases of rape, as that woman did not volunteer to not only carry the child for nine months, but to then raise it for eighteen years. This supports the utilitarian view that in cases such as these, the outcome with the most good for the most people would be to allow for abortion in cases of rape.
Abortion is not an easy decision for people to make, would the child be better off living an extremely disabled life or simply never existing. As discussed, a fetus does not meet the criteria to be considered alive nor to be granted personhood, until at least the 25th week. This disapproves arguments that all abortion is killing, as to be killed you must be alive first. Therefore, abortion is morally permissible if and only if it is before week 25 and it is for the product of rape or the child will be born with crippling diseases and disorders. The only exception for abortion after week 25 would be if the birth would cause severe injury or death to fall upon the mother. Abortion after week 25 without sufficient cause would be morally unacceptable as at that point the fetus’ brain has developed to where they may feel pain.