Why Abortion is Wrong

8/6/2019 Why Abortion is Wrong

1/5

Mike Westfa l lPhilosophy 190Termpaper

why Abonion i s wrong

When I was young, I was under the impress ion t ha t abor t iona per fec t ly and convienient ~ t ' 1 a y to f ix the

unfor tuna te r e su l t of a persona l mistake . I hadn ' t given muchthought to the e th ics of it, and 'J'lasn 't exsposed to thecontroversy surrounding it. However, a f t e r growlng o lder andbeing exposed to o thers thoughts and having my own cha l l enged,have come to change my mind about abor t ion . I t cannot be moral lyj u s t i f i ed in general .

There are many arguments used to j u s t i fy abor t ion . Onepopular argu..'!'.ent asse r t s t ha t a ....oman has the r i gh t to con t ro lher own body, and the re fo re has a r i gh t to have an abor t ion forwhatever reason she sees f i t . This a r g u r o ~ n t i s has a couple off laws, though. F i r s t the asse r t ion tha t a woman has a r i gh t tocon t ro l h er own body a t a l l t imes i s c lea r ly no t the case . Mostpeople have no problem with laws regarding drugs , pros t i t u t i on ,su ic ide , e tc . But even i f we gran t a woman ' s touncondi t iona l ly con t ro l h er own body, th i s still ln no wayj u s t i f i e s abor t ion , because it e i t he r overlooks the f ac t t ha tthe fe tus i s a separa te human en t i t y or assumes tha t the fe tus i spa r t of the woman's body.

I


2/5

Another j u s t i f i ca t ion fo r abor t ion lS tha t it helpse l imina te unwanted chi ldren . Many bele ive t h a t unwanted ch i ld renare somehow i nd i r e c t ly respons ib le for a var ie ty of familyproblems, such as ch i ld abuse, as wel l as soc ia l problems, suchas increased welfare burden. They bel ieve abor t ion lS anaccebtable method fo r a l lev ia t ing these problems.

Besides these two, the re are many o ther j u s t i f i ca t i ons fo rabor t ion , and near ly a l l of them have one th ing in c o ~ m o n : theassumption tha t the unborn i s somehow not fu l ly human, or i s not. ....1 ~ erson. I f could be shovtn t ha t t h i s assumption i s f au l ty ,Iathen most of the arguments for abor t ion would have to f a l l , fo ri f the unborn lS fu l ly human, then. hO'..... could '.-le j u s t i fy execut ingth e unborn any more than we could j u s t i fy execut ing abused youngchi ldren? This would seem to be the ul t imate ch i ld abuse, theworst kind imaginable. I f we agree tha t the unborn i s fu l lyhuman, then it i s verJ d i f i cu l t to demonstrate t ha t the value ofa human being i s dependent on whether someone wants o r cares fort ha t h ~ ~ n being. For example, no one would argue t ha t bums onthe s t r e e t should be rounded up and done away with because theyare u ~ ~ a n t e d , nor the same be done to welfare rec ip ien ts becausethey are a burden on soc ie ty . Many even bel ieve the dea th pena l tyshould never be used a t a l l , even for the most dangerous cr imina lelements in our soc ie ty , because of the inherent worth of a humanbeing.

The quest ion lS no t whether the unborn are wanted, orwhether they ...muld be a burden on socie ty , o r whether one can


3/5

af fo rd to have a ch i ld or whether the pregnancy i s convienient ;the ques t ion i s whether the unborn i s fu l ly human.

Is the unborn fu l ly human? This i s the ques t ion we w i l l haveto answer. Clear ly , the unborn i s human in the b io log ica l sense.I t i s ce r ta in ly not F'rog or Chicken or Catf ish or Pine Tree. Andce r ta in ly the unborn i s l i v ing . Furtherrnore, the unborn has agenet ic makeup t ha t i s d i s t i nc t l y d i f f e r e n t from i t s mother ' s ,making it a d i s t i n c t being. Hence, the unborn J..S a d i s t i nc t ,l i v ing human being, even i f it i s ent i re ly dependent upon, andl i v ing within the mother ' s body.

But i s the unborn f u l l y human? Some would argue tha t a babyrec ieves i t s fu l l personhood upon being born and taking it'sf i r s t breath . But what i s so spec ia l about b i r th t ha t it could\ change a h ~ ~ a n being from a non-person in to a person? There i s noqua l i t a t i ve d i f fe rence between a baby one minute a f t e r it's bornand one minute before it's born. The only d i f fe rences areloca t ion of the baby re la t ive to i t s mother 's body, and themethod by which it rece ives i t s nu t r i t i on . The baby must now e a tto rec ieve nourishment and brea the to ge t i t s needed oxygen.These d i f fe rences l oca l i t y and bio logica l process don ' tseem to be s u f f i c i e n t fo r conferr ing or denying personhood.

Likewise , there i s no qua l i ta t ive difference between a baby'one minute before it i s born and two minutes before it i s born,o r three minutes before it i s born. In fac t , the whole process ofdevelopment from the t ime of concept ion un t i l b i r t h , even u n t i lthe dea th of the person i s a cont inuous progress ion , with no ones ingle event occuring tha t could be the def in ing event a t the


4/5

beginning of personhood. Some would say t ha t when the hear ts t a r t s bea t ing , or when brain-'."J'ave ac t i v i t y begins are d i s t i nc tevent s in the development of a human being, but these a re mereb io log ica l func t ions . .r..gain, they don ' t seem to be s u f f i c i e n tc r i t e r i a for conferr ing or denying personhood. Furthermore, thesetwo events t ake p lace very ear ly in pregnancy, before the t imewhen the vas t major i ty of abor t ions are performed.

p ~ o t h e r argument asse r t s tha t the unborn i s a person when itreaches the s tage of "viab i l i ty" , tha t lS , when it can surviveouts ide the womb with the expert care of doctors in a hosp i t a l o rlaboratory . But t h i s would mean tha t personhood i s def ined by the

, / ' cur ren t s t a t e of medical t e c h n o l o ~ J and th e s k i l l of the doc torsinvolved. As the s t a t e of the medical a r t advances, the age ofv iab i l i t y ge ts c lose r to concept ion. It i s expected t h a t s o ~ ~ t i ~ ~ in the fu ture medical technology w i l l have advanced to th e s t a t et ha t a human baby w i l l be v iab le from the t ime of concept ion,never needing to be in the mother s womb a t a l l ! Personhoodcap_'1.ot be r a t i ona l ly based on v i ab i l i t y ; it must be independentof technology.

What, then, i s l e f t fo r determining T.f1hen a b . \ l . ~ . a n en t i t ybecomes a person? It would seem tha t personhood i s not determinedby anything tha t happens in the womb, or any spec ia l event t ha thappens a t b i r t h . TNhy, then, should we consider the unborn to beunworthy of th e Right to Life , but ackno'.....ledge t ha t r i gh t theminute the baby i s born? I t seems a rb i t r a ry and inconsis ten t .

In c lass we discussed severa l thoer ies of persona l ident i ty ,t ry ing to resolve j u s t what 18 it about us t ha t glves us our


5/5

perona l i den t i t i e s . None of these addressed how a human could bea person j u s t a f t e r b i r th , but not j u s t before b i r t h .Furthermore, we don ' t need to resolve the i de n t i t y of the humanin quest ion, fo r it doesn ' t mat te r who the unborn i s , bu t whetherthe unborn i s or i s n ' t a person. I t would seem the only th ingl e f t fo r grant ing a human en t i t y personhod i s it's mereexis tance . And s ince a pre-born human being i s no less ex i s t an tthan a pos t -born h u w ~ n being, the pre-born should be considered aperson as much as anyone, even up to the t ime of concept ion.

Assuming one agrees ... l i th the foregoing arguments fo r thepersonhood of the unborn, one might still be inc l ined to ask,"But how does the personhood of the unborn make abor t ion mora l lyun jus t i f i ab le?" This w i l l depend on ones own theory of mora l i ty ,but i f th e unborn i s a person, and i f one s moral code cannotj u s t i fy the k i l l i ng of innocent people ~ genera l , then onecannot cons i s t an t ly moral ly j u s t i fy abor t ion in genera l .

Why Abortion is Wrong

Documents