Essay
One of the most controversial issues of our time is connected to women, or rather, to their rights. This issue is about the moral right of every woman to do the abortion only according to her own choice. But not too many women and even men agree with this right to choose. Many of them think that it isn’t moral permissible to do the abortion because the fetus has “soul”, or maybe it’s alive or any argument like that. No matter about the desires or feeling of the pregnant woman, her right to do absolutely she wants with her body is totally ignored by people, mentioned before. But is it right?
No, it isn’t. Only the pregnant woman (and the guy who made her pregnant; but still not the guy who made her pregnant by rape) has the moral right to choose the fate of the fetus. The pregnant woman should have the right to do everything she and her cavalier want with that fetus, regardless of people who wants to make the decision instead of the woman and her boyfriend/husband.
Such position can be well reasoned by the most famous work, made by Judith Jarvis Thomson – “A Defense of Abortion”, dated 1971. This book is based on the rights of pregnant women to do absolutely everything she wants with her own body. Her position is clear – the abortion is the thing, sometimes morally permissible, when this “sometimes” comes in many situations.
One of the main arguments against the abortion comes with the idea that fetus is a conscious person, who has their undoubtable right to life. As it is impossible to justify a murder, killing fetus equals killing a person, so abortion can’t be accepted as moral. But it seems that these arguments are for utopias only, because if people had an undoubtable right to live there wouldn’t be such amount of wars, murders and crimes only because it is immoral. As a result, people kill the other people for some material goods, authority, revenge, etc. Even an allusion to this “inherent right to life” can’t be seen.
And what’s about the self-defense kills? As killing isn’t moral, so self-defense must be prohibited, because the defendant can kill the attacker. And nobody will care that the attacker can do an irreparable harm to the person, who just wants to get out from the situation alive. The same situation can be seen around the fetuses (but only as a product of rape or a casual pregnancy). This fetus is unwanted (that much unwanted as the assault with the goal to kill) and can make irreparable harm to the pregnant woman by some complications.
Thomas grants that fetuses are people, but even if it’s true, the abortion still can be permissible. She says that fetuses become people only on some late terms, where her main idea is that to have a physical body equals being the person. According to Thomson, every woman has her right to control her own body, and the pregnancy isn’t exception. Yes, fetuses have their own rights to remain in bodies of their mother, but women have the right to “unplug” and abort her fetus, and this is the situation, where both sides can’t be respected.
There is also a very good example, coerced by Thomson. This example helps to change people’s mind very well, only by using their imagination. The famous violinist scenario is about the person, violinist and his band. Where, according the scenario I wake up and find myself together in bed with a famous violinist, unconscious violinist. According his medical card, he has a fatal kidney ailment, and due to some strange coincidence, I am only the person who has the right type of blood to help the violinist. After the understanding comes” The Society of Music Lovers kidnaps and plugs me to the violinists’ circulatory system, trying to save his life by extracting the poison from his blood. According to words of the hospital’s director, they could do nothing to prevent this plugging, and I have two ways: to wait until the violinists’ cure, or to unplug myself and go away. If I unplug myself from the violinist, he will have a 120% chance to die, so his death is inevitable in this case. But if I stay I can heal him with my blessed blood and after his recover I will be able safely unplug from him with no lethal outcome for the violinist.
The questions are: “Should I?”; “What if it take more than 9 months, but 9 years or more?” and etc. As a result, there are two possible decisions: to unplug myself and kill the violinist, or to stay and keep the violinist alive for nine months, or years, or until the end of my life. There is also a chance that the director say that I should stay with the violinist for the rest of my life, because all people have an undoubtable right to life, so I can’t unplug myself because the right to life of the violinist outweighs my right to control my own body so I can’t even be unplugged.
The decision is simple and clear for me – to unplug myself, because no one has the right to kidnap me and do whatever he or she wants with my own body. My right to control my own body is much valuable for me that the right of that violinist to live, that’s why I’ll refuse to keep the violinist alive. I’m not the spouse of that violinist, not the child, beloved person or even the mad fan of violins, I shouldn’t keep him alive.
The situation with this violinist can be well compared to the pregnancy caused by rape, where the rapist is that Society of Music Lovers; special blood type is to be unlucky enough in some wrong place; the fetus is the violinist who will die without my body; and the director of the hospital is he still remains the director of the hospital, who offers me to change my decision because the fetus has inherent right to life, which is according to the anti-abortion society, outweighs any other right.
It is doubtfully that ordinary person will spare his/her life for a talented, but absolutely unknown stranger, whose friends kidnapped this person and without his/her permission plugged to the violinist. It is ridiculous, at least. Similar situation is with unwanted pregnancy/pregnancy caused by rape – only the mother of that fetus has the right to continue or to interrupt its life, not the director of any hospital, or any other “Musical Lovers Society”.
Same thing with the examples of 14-year-old victim of rape, poor woman with ten children and the young married working woman. They should have same right to do what they want to their bodies, and they are only the persons who should decide what to do with the fetus. If it is unwanted, or even the product of rape they have absolutely all right to do the abortion, not depending on their social status and wealth. 14 year-old-victim has same right to do the abortion as the young married working woman or ten-children-mother.
The right to perform the abortion should be commonly spread to every woman, regardless of her social and/or material status. But also, there must be some restriction in this case. The abortion should be absolutely allowed to every woman who wants it, because it is her right to do everything she wants with her own body, she is the only person who should decide what to do, on her own.
According to Judith Jarvis Thomson, fetus becomes the person only on the 6th or 7th month of pregnancy, so the abortion made in short terms shouldn’t count as the murder. That’s why in my humble opinion, the abortion can be prohibited only due to some medical indications, which can cause more troubles than the childbearing. And even in this case the final decision should be taken only by the bearer of that fetus.
The only thing should happen – the pregnant woman must be informed about the possible risks caused by abortion, and after informing she should make a decision – to abort or to save the fetus.
References
- Cohen, Marshall, and Thomas Nagel. The Rights and Wrongs of Abortion. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton UP, 1974. Print.
- Lader, Lawrence. Abortion. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966. Print.
- Macleod, Catriona. Adolescence, Pregnancy and Abortion: Constructing a Threat of Degeneration. London: Routledge, 2011. Print.
