Ethics

Pro-choice and pro-life advocates both have sound arguments regarding their positions on the issue of abortion. Pro-choice advocates generally emphasize womens rights while pro-life advocates stress fetal rights. Looking at the moral and legal arguments of both sides, we have come to the conviction that in the end, pro-choice arguments are the more practical of the two. Enacting pro-life legislation would merely create unnecessary conflict in the family unit between the mother and the unborn human being inside her womb. Thus, it is more practical and appropriate to uphold the current system where abortion is allowed during the first two trimesters of pregnancy, and only recognize fetuses as persons after this period.

One of the primary arguments of pro-choice advocates is that a woman has a right to absolute privacy regarding what to do with her body. It is a moral argument that is based on the principle of respect for autonomy, including the basic right to keep things personal and private if one wishes to do so. Invasion of privacy is one of the most condemned transgressions to human rights in todays society. People are vehemently against the state prying into their private conversations or interfering with their lifestyles, for example. Pro-choice advocates state that a woman should be able to freely choose what to do with the fetus shes carrying, even decide to abort it.

The privacy argument was essentially the basis of the Roe vs. Wade decision that ruled a Texas law outlawing abortion unconstitutional (Hindson  Caner 12). Denying a woman the option to abort is an infringement to her rights to liberty, physical integrity and self-determination. Contrary to pro-life advocates assertion that bearing a child is a mere inconvenience to those who oppose it, pregnancy is actually an arduous and physically risky undertaking. Women who do not willingly bear children also find the whole process completely miserable

Grief doesnt stop at pregnancy for many women who have been forced to bear children. A woman has the option to either care for the child or surrender it for adoption. Caring for the child may result in the difficulty to continue pursuing her chosen career or fulfilling obligations to her family. On the other hand, the option to surrender the child for adoption has made many women unhappy knowing that they have children somewhere in the world that they cannot care for (Singer 306).

Another argument of pro-choice advocates concerns quality of life. The argument basically states that if a child is defective and deformed, then it should not be forced to suffer a life which may be worse than death. There are different points to launch such an argument. Some argue on the basis of the childs suffering while others choose to highlight the burden of the childs deformity to the family. There are pro-choice advocates who stress the absurdity and inhumanity of forcing a severely sick child to live when hell only live painfully for a few days or for a very short period of time. Other advocates refer to specific deformities such as Downs Syndrome or mild retardation.

Perhaps the most critical moral argument of pro-choice arguments concerns the conviction that a fetus is not a person. Pro-life advocates usually attack pro-choice arguments by saying that no human has the right to attack an innocent person. Opponents of this argument forward the belief that an unborn fetus has not yet reached the status of being a person in its first and second trimester. Therefore, the duty of people to not harm persons does not apply to the fetus. This argument is pretty clear and simple and hits the nail right on the head. A person may destroy an object without infringing on any right  he may destroy his own computer or chop down his own tree. Similarly, if a fetus is not a person, then a woman can abort it in the first and second trimester without stepping on any human rights or being inhumane.

The pro-life stance can also be defended in terms of the possible consequences of pro-life legislation. If states are free to declare a fetus a person, thereby outlawing abortion, this may automatically curtail some peoples constitutional rights since new persons are added to the constitutional population. A persons constitutional rights are always affected by the constitutional rights of other people, and in many cases, there might be conflict. Increasing the constitutional rights of a set of people may necessitate decreasing the rights of another (Stone et. al 400). For example, if a fetus is indeed a person at any stage of conception and a mothers life is in danger in conceiving the child, whose life shall the state promote  the fetus or the mothers Since both are persons, then theres conflict on whose right to live should be upheld. Treating a fetus as a person also provides more reason for the state to interfere with the mothers life. If a citizen is within a citizen, then the state would have to pass more pieces of legislation to protect that citizen, thereby restricting the mothers options.

Pro-choice advocates have won significant legal victories in the course of the abortion debate. The most significant victory transpired in 1973 when the Supreme Court upheld its decision regarding Roe vs. Wade. This landmark decision stated the following first, states could not restrict abortion during the first six months or the first two trimesters of pregnancy except for normal procedural guidelines. Thus, a woman can have an abortion for any reason during this period of time, for example, whether for health reasons or for mere inconvenience. The Supreme Courts decision also rules that during the last trimester, the state has the right but no obligation to restrict abortions in cases where the mothers life is in danger (Hindson  Caner 12).

Another significant legislative victory for pro-choice advocates is the Supreme Courts decision regarding Doe vs. Bolton, which broadened the definition of situations wherein the mothers health is in danger or jeopardy. It included all factors, such as physical, psychological, emotional, familial, and even the womans age. All of these factors were ruled as relating to the mothers overall health. This decision made abortion legal for the entire nine months of pregnancy of any woman who requests it. Today, abortion is a legal procedure in many parts of the United States for any reason, including birth control, sex selection, eugenic purposes, bone marrow transplants, and pregnancies out of wedlock.
In response to pro-choice arguments that a fetus is not part of a womans body, and therefore, forcing a woman to bear it would be interfering in her privacy and autonomy, pro-life advocates say that a fetus is not just any other object which the mother doesnt own  it is, in fact, her child. A fetus is genetically distinct from the mother, with its own blood type, gender and identity. It is not like the mothers kidney or leg, which is merely attached to her. It is an individual whos attached to her but not part of her body. As proof of this, the mothers body actually attacks the zygote on the eighth day of pregnancy when it attaches itself to the uterus because the mothers body recognizes it as a foreign entity. The embryo only survives this immunological attack because it has its own built-in immune system (Foreman 73).

Some pro-choice advocates argue that a mother has no obligation to the fetus that depends on her for life. However, pro-life advocates argue that a mother has prima facie obligations to care for her children, and children likewise have prima facie claims to be cared for by their parents. In fact, all of child abuse and abandonment laws in the United States are founded on this basic understanding of the unit of the family. Abortion also is not equal to passively allowing an organism to die, which is lawful in normal circumstances. No one is obliged to save another person even if it is completely within his power to do so. However, if a fetus is a person, then abortion is not passively allowing someone to die, but actively killing him. Therefore, just as it is unlawful for anyone to kill another person, it is unlawful for the mother to kill her own child.

Pro-life advocates also find it easy to strike down the quality of life argument. They argue that even sick and deformed persons have the same moral rights as other people. Taking away a sick or deformed persons life just because of his condition is an act of discrimination no matter if the person taking away the life does it out of complete pity. The quality of life argument is also easy to deconstruct because it is always launched from subjective interpretations on what makes life worth living. It is absolutely presumptuous to say that someones life is not worth living just because it doesnt meet a certain set of standards. Interestingly, not one disability or handicapped organization has supported pro-choice advocates with this argument. Looking at statistics, not many disabled and suffering people also commit suicides, although they do happen.

The quality of life argument is also vulnerable to logical reasoning. The argument assumes that nothing (death) is better than something (life, however deformed). There is no logical way to prove that nothing is better than something because to compare two things, both things must exist. Since nothing doesnt exist and doesnt have any property, one cannot say that it is better than something. Therefore, one cannot say that dying is better than living a life of deformity or sickness (Foreman 76).
Another argument from the pro-life side is abortion deprives the fetus  whos supposed to grow into a fully developed human being  of the activities, experiences and pleasures that would have occurred in his future. These are goods that no one cannot take away, for to do so, would be robbery. This argument is interesting because it does not hinge on the supposition that a fetus is a person. However, it does argue that a fetus has a potential to be a person, and thus have a future of a person (Foreman 78).

Immanuel Kants categorical imperative has also been used by pro-life advocates to argue their position. According to this argument, a consistent person will not have different moral positions for others and for himself. Consistent people expect of themselves what they would expect of others. Thus, if a person thinks that abortion is normally permissible, then he must also agree to the idea of being aborted himself. Since people would normally not agree to being aborted themselves, they would have to agree that abortion is normally impermissible.

One of the main points of divergence between pro-choice and pro-life advocates is their definition of what constitutes a person. If a fetus is a person, then aborting it would be equal to murder and the state has the obligation to interfere to protect the life of another citizen inside the mothers womb. On the other hand, if the fetus is not a person, then a mother can freely abort it for whatever reason.
According to pro-life advocates, pro-choice definitions of what constitutes a person almost always use a functionalistic approach. An object is supposed to be a person if it has a certain set of criteria, such as self-consciousness, ability to reason, ability to communicate, ability to respond to the outside world, etc. When an object does not exhibit these characteristics, it is not a person. Similarly, if a fetus does not have such capabilities, it is not a person.

The problem with the functionalistic definition of personhood is that there are states even full-grown humans when they are not exhibiting such characteristics, such as when a person is asleep or in a coma. Thus, are we to say that a fully grown human who doesnt display such functions is not a person Since most would agree that this is not the case, then it is wrong to apply the functionalistic definition of personhood to fetuses.

Instead of the functionalistic definition, some pro-life advocates forward the essentialistic definition, which says a person is a living thing who has the essential capacity for emotional expression, rational reflection, moral deliberation and willful direction concerning his life and the world around him. Essential capacity refers to the innate natural capability to be a person even if such a capacity is never actualized. All human beings have this innate capacity to be a person simply by nature of being human (Hindson  Caner 13).

Radical pro-life advocates argue that in cases of conflict, fetuses rights should take precedence over mothers rights. While they do not deny that women have their rights, they stress that such rights must be weighed against fetal rights. Fetuses rights should be favored because these unborn persons are defenseless and innocent. Pregnant womens rights should be limited when weighed against fetal rights because parents are not allowed to refuse life-saving medical treatment to their unborn children even on the basis of religion. After all, individual human rights can be practically overridden in the interest of the public (MacNiven 160).

Both pro-choice and pro-life advocates have valid arguments for their respective positions regarding abortion. Pro-choice advocates should be commended for their emphasis on the rights of women while pro-life advocates for their support of the rights of fetuses. In the end however, we side with pro-choice advocates in this issue simply because they have made the possible complexities of enacting pro-life legislation clear.

Striking down Roe vs. Wade would mean that the United States Supreme Court would recognize fetuses as persons and therefore as a new set of citizens. Things will get very difficult and even absurd from here, as this would automatically create conflict between mothers and their own unborn children. The state will turn into an arbiter between the two. Instead of promoting harmony in the family unit, it may spark legal conflict on whose rights should be upheld.

Instead of promoting pro-life legislation, the government should stick with the present system of allowing abortion during the first two trimesters of pregnancy. Fetuses should only be recognized as persons after this period to protect the interest of women and the public.