Valuing Life at its Beginning
The issue on abortion is a continuous concern of almost every human society across the world. At a certain point of history, people decided to be in absolute opposition to it. However, there is also a point of time when people agreed its practice. Even some medical students and professionals get confused on making their own position regarding this matter. Through the years, men sought answers as to whether aborting a conceived child-to-be is right or wrong. Along with various researchers, ethical advisors, philosophers, and lawmakers, people look at different perspectives – considering many cases and contexts the practice of abortion would be deemed reasonable and justified. They consider the sides of the child-to-be and the mother; they looked at the moral justifications suggested by two opposing positions; and they institute necessary legal actions which the public – particularly the mothers, fathers, medical professionals, and other individuals related them – should adhere to. But the positions regarding the practice of abortion are different between countries. More than mere perspectives, actions implemented in the United States of America may be quite different from the practice in Asian or European countries. Nevertheless, the important thing is to lay down the different positions already made by certain individuals and groups, and to scrutinize each one of them. If this positions be grounded enough with justifiable arguments, no matter what country one is in and whether he/she is a medical professional or not, the perspectives of everyone regarding abortion and the practice of it will be in accordance to what is right before the eyes of all – without giving guilt and negative conscience upon the parent(s) and/or the clinician. This is very necessary plainly because any discretion made regarding abortion affects the condition of the child-to-be, the mother and the family, and the medical professional who is to take actions upon it. In light of that, this paper’s focus is on the positions made regarding the said matter. This will include discussions on how the practice of abortion is seen in the moral, ethical, social, and legal contexts, and will clearly lay down an absolute position in light of the diverse cases and contexts connected to the practice of abortion – making a conclusion on whether it is right or wrong.
Background
The exact date the practice of abortion begun cannot be determined at all. However, one can assume that it already took place during the Greco-Roman life. Some suggests that it was even acceptable during those times (Naden, 2007). The issue is even included in the Jewish and Christian theology since centuries past. Besides, the Hippocratic Oath, which is written many centuries ago, even includes a statement, “I will not give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy” (Edelstein, 1943). Even physicians and other medical practitioners before acknowledge that abortion is a dangerous process upon the health of women. Due to the absence of improved health care during those times, it is hard to imagine how doctors would force the conceived embryo or fetus out of a woman’s organ. Nevertheless, in light of the health condition of women, the stress on the issue seems to loosen as years pass by. In 1861, the Offences against the Person Act made the supply or use of any poison or other instruments to cause a pregnant woman to abort a fetus or a child as illegal. But in 1938, a case where a 14-year old girl got raped and was prone to “mental wreck” was given the access to abortion. In 1966, a bill was passed and was later called the 1967 Abortion Act. This Act allowed abortion on the two grounds: the continuation of the pregnancy will involve greater risk to the mental or physical health of the woman; and there is a risk that the baby to be born would be disabled (Society for the Protection of Unborn Children [SPUC], n.d.). In the case of U.S., the issue was addressed following the lead of England, wherein the U.S. authorities put only few restrictions on abortion until 1840s or so. They granted access to abortion upon the discretion of pregnant women (Tong, 2007). But as the birth rate went down, abortion was already prohibited. Abortion then, became a social issue. Moreover, although the medical advancement makes the process safer to women, a position made that the protection of women should be seen as secondary to the value of the fetus. Thus, the issue already covers two sides: the woman and the fetus. More than a health issue, it was then viewed as moral one as well. However, the position on abortion still seems to be lack of absolute authority until today. Many still want to pass a bill allowing women to have abortion, while many are still opposed to it.
The issue whether abortion is right or wrong and whether it should be allowed or not is one of the prominent issues for some reasons. First, many practice it. About 208 million pregnancies take place every year around the world. 31 million (15%) of this end in natural miscarriage, and 41 million (20%) end up in abortion (Bailey, 2011). The case is that in light of great oppositions to abortion, many still practice it. Therefore, if many still practice and allow it, there could be something wrong in men’s position regarding abortion. A Greek physician made details on how to induce abortions some centuries ago; documents since 12th Century in Japan discuss on how to get an abortion done; the Pope declared it as gravely immoral in 1869; the Soviet Union authority legalized abortions in 1920; in late 1960s and 1970s, abortion became legal in developed countries; and in the late 20th Century, China made it as a means to birth control (Naden, 2007). In some Asian countries like the Philippines, only when the health of the pregnant woman is at stake will abortion be granted. Now there could only be one position: either anti-abortion people or the pro-abortion are right. Second, this becomes a serious matter since it is a matter of life and death. The woman and the unborn child are at risk.
Positions on the Practice of Abortion on Different Aspects
Now in making a certain position on abortion, it is worthy of doing that one should look at the physical and mental aspects in the said practice. There are studies having nationally representative samples and diverse controls for extraneous variables affirming that induced abortion puts women at risk for depression, anxiety, and substance abuse (Coleman, Coyle, Shuping, & Rue, 2008). They suggest that some sort of psychological disorder is likely to happen. However, research studies have concluded that there is a little evidence on the mental risks associated with abortion (Terrell, 2009). It is supported that abortion may lead to some mental risks, but not to long-term mental health problems (Charles, Polis, Sridhara, & Blum, 2008). It is therefore concluded that women’s responses to their abortion do not always lead to certain mental disorders such as grief, but are “varied and located within the personal and social context” (as cited in Coleman, Coyle, Shuping, & Rue, 2008, p. 2).
Concerning the physical health of the woman, the risk is determined by the process of abortion. Plainly because abortion is illegal in many countries, women are more likely to go to “underground” abortion, wherein non-professional and non-licensed midwives are requested to do the process. Professional clinicians and researches affirm that risk of death, physical harm, or reduction in future fertility is significantly low following abortions conducted by trained clinicians using appropriate facilities (Look, Heggenhougen, & Quah, 2011). The pain induced by abortion is common as in childbirth and any other surgical practices.
With these concepts taken from two perspectives, mental and health condition resulting from abortion, many voices out that abortion should be legalized. However, as aforementioned, many are still in opposition to it. Besides, these “non-risky” mental and physical health perspectives – in the context of the woman – are not enough as justifiable grounds for viewing abortion as a right thing to do. A thief may not put himself at physical or mental risk when stealing something in secret – where absolutely no one is around. Nevertheless, what he does is absolutely wrong in everybody’s eyes. Hackers – who are already “trained” enough that nobody can touch them at all – can make countless cybercrimes and frauds without bringing mental or physical hazards upon themselves. Yet they are absolutely wrong. And the government authorities are making laws and other actions to address such thing. In these two examples, the “primary” individuals may not be harmed but other are. Likewise, induced abortion may be conducted through a “trained” process so that no mental/physical harm is induced, yet it destroys life. The position regarding abortion should also be taken within ethical and moral contexts.
Concerning the side of the embryo or the fetus, many affirm that abortion is a form of murdering a human being. However, there are also many who are in opposition to this. They claim that a fetus will only be a human being upon his/her birth. They even argue that while it is in the woman’s body, a fetus is not yet someone who has consciousness, reasoning, self-determined activity, the ability to communicate, and others (Tong, 2007). But this opposition is not justifiable. No one can make the issue of consciousness, ability to communicate, and so on as a ground to their argument. For serial killers and a lot of renowned criminals have no consciousness at all in committing crime, yet they are still deemed as human beings. Moreover, the development of a fetus inside a mother’s womb is just the same as a seed is planted on the ground; it starts with no leaf or stem, yet a gardener takes care of it, knowing that it is alive and is going to be a plant days later. If an embryo or a fetus is not human being, then why are those receptive mothers begin to love what is inside their womb? If these are not human beings, then mothers who grieve when natural abortion/miscarriage occurs and mothers who take joy and excitement for the one who is “on the way” are altogether foolish and irrational (Kaczor, 2011). If no one can view them as human beings, then pregnant women should not take extra care on their own health – which is accepted to be a way to nourish the child inside. Indeed, fetal development is simply the gradual and continuous process of human development who comes into human personhood “at the moment of conception and is born 9 months later” (Tong, 2007, p. 116). Thus, induced abortion is killing a human being at its very start of development. It is therefore an immoral thing to do and it should not be legalized.
The other position pro-abortionist makes is concerning the right of the woman. They claim that the pregnant has the right to bodily integrity and privacy, and to a full human life. They argue that the fetus does not necessarily have the right to the body to which he/she is attached to. Thompson states that the fetus’ right to life does not automatically give him/her the right to “use another person’s body in order to keep on living” (Tong, 2007, p. 119). The mother has the right on her body when it comes to abortion. But induced abortions are selfish, ego-centered actions (Butler & Walbert, 2011). It seems worthy to ask a woman longing for abortion simply because she wanted bodily integrity, “What if your mother decided to abort you because she also wanted bodily integrity?” It is so foolish for one – who is given the opportunity to get conceived, to live and cared upon by her mother – would decide to deprave her child of conception, life, and care. But many say that this depends on the context of the mother. Some would argue that they abort the child in order to take care of the existing child. This clearly points to what they call as “unwanted pregnancy” – although it is conceived through voluntary intercourse. It is irrational to claim that a couple decided to have an intercourse but does not desire to have the woman pregnant. Life is full of responsibility. Any action results to something. And that should be taken as a form of responsibility. Thus, no one could reason out that abortion should be granted due to “unwanted pregnancy” through wanted intercourse. Furthermore, in light of pro-abortionists arguments on the woman’s right to a full human life, everybody does. But one’s right of a human life is not all about the self. It includes the other individuals in the family and the society. No one can be said to have full human life is he/she has no interactions with other people, or if he/she does not get benefits from other people, or if he/she does not give benefits to other people. Life is a relationship, an interaction. Moreover, others even say that women go for abortion to deal with her problems in life. However, Serrin Foster of Feminists for Life says that abortion is “a symptom of, not a solution to, the continuing struggles women faces in the workplace, at home and in society” (as cited in SPUC, n.d.). Even when it comes to pregnancy from rape or incest, the child is absolutely an innocent being. Thus, a woman cannot have abortion while saying that she wants to have full human life in her own terms. It is simply because she is depriving herself of the great privilege of being someone who gives care and life to another being – the baby.
Conclusion
Looking at the above discussion, induced abortion should absolutely not be legalized. Life should not be destroyed. Thus, only therapeutic abortion – specifically only when the pregnancy will bring greater physical harm upon the mother – should be accepted as a justified reason for abortion. For the rest of the various reasons others have, abortion is absolutely killing another human being, and that this action is a humanly-selfish thing to do. Abortion is not a right thing to do.
References
Bailey, J. (2011). Abortion. New York, NY: The Rosen Publishing Group.
Butler, J. & Walbert, D. (2011). Abortion, medicine, and the law. Paragon, IN: Fideli Publishing.
Charles, V., Polis, C., Sridhara, S., & Blum, R. (2008). Abortion and long-term mental health outcomes: A systematic review of the evidence. Contraception, 78, 436-450. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2008.07.005
Coleman, P., Coyle, C., Shuping, M., & Rue, V. (2008). Induced abortion and anxiety, mood, and substance abuse disorders: Isolating the effects of abortion in the national co-morbidity survey. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 1-7. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2008.10.009
Edelstein, L. (1943). From the Hippocratic Oath: Text, translation, and interpretation, by Ludwig Edelstein. Baltimore, BAL: Johns Hopkins Press.
Kaczor, C. (2011). The ethics of abortion: Women’s rights, human life, and the question of justice. New York, NY: Routledge.
Look, P., Heggenhougen, H., & Quah, S. (Eds.). (2011). Sexual and reproductive health: A public perspective. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Naden, C. (2007). Abortion. Tarrytown, NY: Marshall Cavendish.
Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. (n.d.). Abortion. Retrieved from http://www.spuc.org.uk/education/abortion/exploring.pdf
Terrell, H. (2009). Childhood risk factors for the abortion and alcohol use disorders relationship. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest LLC. (Accession Order No. UMI Microfilm 3357285).
Tong, R. (2007). New perspectives in healthcare ethics: An interdisciplinary and crosscultural approach. New Jersey, NJ: Pearson.
