Legalization of Abortion - Essay Example

?Introduction Judith Jarvis Thomson and Michael Tooley presented several arguments on the circumstances under which abortion could be morally permissible. However, before considering their arguments, it is important to consider the reason why abortion is so vehemently opposed in most societies. According to Warren (1989:32), abortion opponents argue that it amounts to murder of the infant. In this case, the argument considers the fetus as human being, with a right to life just like mature person in the planet. This paper discusses circumstances in which abortion is morally permissible in the view of Judith Thompson and Michael Tooley. From the Catholic point of view, life begins immediately after conception and therefore it should be preserved under all circumstances because interfering with it amount to violation of God commandment that forbids murder. Thomson (1971: 46) declines to engage in the argument of establishing when life begins, but she agrees that at conception, the fetus is an embodiment of life that at just ten weeks has developed most physical characteristics of a human being. In this case, Thomson (1971:47) support of abortion does not arise from opposing the view that life begins at conception, but from the pregnant woman point of view. The first circumstance that could make abortion morally permissible according to Judith is when a woman conceives without her consent through rape (Thomson, 1971:47). In such situation, the argument that every person has a right to live lacks conviction because it denies the woman the right to make her own sound decision. Opposing abortion in such circumstance is tantamount to accepting rape as moral act that could be justified by the pregnancy. In case of pregnancy resulting from rape, Thomson(1971:48) argues that the woman should be allowed to make her own decision on whether to abort or not, because the fetus is in the woman , she is the owner of her body and she holds the sole responsibility of determining whether to keep it or not. Another circumstance that render abortion morally permissible is when the life of the mother is in danger (Thomson 1971:49). In such circumstance, prolife activists argue that the action of aborting amounts to murdering the fetus. In this case, the mother should be allowed to carry on and die naturally. This is utter disregard of the mother‘s life where the fetus is regarded to be of more importance. The circumstance under which a woman gets pregnant should not be used as a reason for justifying moral permissibility of abortion or not. According to Thomson (1971: 53), nobody is morally required to make huge sacrifices of her interests, health, concerns or commitment for a given period just to keep another person alive. This condition holds because the unborn child has the no right to demand the sacrifice (Thomson, 1971:53). In this case, the decision on whether a woman should make the sacrifice to carry the baby to term does not arise because the unborn child deserves the right but it is the volition of the woman to do so. The main point of contention in the abortion debate arises from the fact that a woman cannot safely undertake abortion on herself and hence she requires the assistance of a qualified person (Thomson, 1971:56). In such situation, the role of the third party on whether to accept the abortion request or not has often been strictly regulated by law, and in most countries, it is illegal for a medical practitioner to undertake the procedure on a woman. Thomson (1971:55) argues that restriction amounts to affirming that the unborn child has every right to be accommodated in the mother’s womb and the wellbeing of the baby should always come before the interests of the woman. In this case, the role of the third party (doctor) in the abortion debate is unfairly extended to deny her wish and this situation portrays a woman like a helpless bystander, who cannot make the decision, about her happiness, yet she is the one carrying the baby in her womb. Thomson (1971:59) argues that every person has right for self defense and in respect to a pregnant woman, she too has the right to stand and defend her life in cases where the unborn child presents potential danger to her life as well even if her action would lead to compromising the life of the fetus. However, Petchesky (1984:37) does not support that any third party should agree to a woman’s request of procuring an abortion, but the doctor under certain circumstances should accede. To answer the question on whether women are morally bound to carry their unborn babies up to term, Thomson (1971:62) uses the biblical example of the Good Samaritan who went an extra mile and assisted an injured man who desperately needed help. The Good Samaritan and other passersby who did nothing to help were not morally compelled to assist the injured man (Thomson, 1971:63). However, the US law in most states compels pregnant women to be the safe custodians of their unborn children until they are born. In this case, Thomson (1971:64) argues that abortion should be legalized because women have no obligation to give their unborn children right to life. The parents give the rights to the children once they assume the responsibility of bringing them up after birth. Therefore, abortion should be legalized in situation where a young girl is raped and becomes pregnant, when the life of the mother is at danger if the pregnancy in continued and in special circumstances where the mother feels that carrying the pregnancy would take huge sacrifices on her health or other commitments (Thomson, 1971:55). In Thomson’s (1971:56) opinion, abortion in such situations is morally permissible because the unborn fetus does not have the right to use the womb of the mother and she does not owe it the obligation. I concur with Thomson argument that the life of an unborn child is regarded to be of more importance than that of the mother simply because the fetus cannot speak for itself. Though a close relationship exists between the fetus and the mother, the mother is not morally bound to keep the pregnancy because she carries the baby in her own body. Therefore, under the above-mentioned circumstances, I agree that women should be allowed to terminate pregnancy and their decision respected. Tooley, (1983: 25) argues that in order for something to be given right to life, it must have the capacity to have interests that entails possessing the concept of self as a living thing sensitive to experiences, having mental acuity and with the believe that it is a continuous entity. In this case, Tooley (1983: 35) implies that infants and unborn children do not have the right to life because they do not have the specified abilities. According to Tooley (1983) abortion at any stage of life and infanticide are morally permissible because infants and newborn babies are less neurologically developed than adult persons who have a moral right to life. In this respect, infants and fetuses do not have the right to live because they lack an interest for continuous existence. They lack desire for continuous survival since they do not have the concept of continuous subject of experience (Feinberg, 1973: 41). In this case, infants do not have moral right to life because they lack the relevant qualities that make something worth living. Though there is no evidence of existence of desires in the early stages of a fetal development, Jordan (1986:47) notes that in the later stages before birth, fetus and infants have remarkable desires to live, and that is why many preterm babies survive. In this case, arguing that infanticide and abortion is morally permissible is wrong because late term fetuses and infants are in the process of becoming continuous subjects of experience. Following these assertions, Tooley(1983:79) supports moral permissibility of both infanticide and abortions by the desire of parents to give birth to children who are physically and mentally sound, with good intellectual potential. I oppose Tooley argument that infant and unborn children do not have the right to life simply because they lack concept of continuous self. From the conception, a fetus is continuously developing to become a person a process that continues after birth. Conclusion Though legalization of abortion continues to elicit moral and ethical debates, the life of mother and the future the baby should be considered before undertaking abortion. Abortion should be legalized in circumstances where the life of the mother is in danger if the pregnancy is continued. In society where social problem such as crime, poverty and drug abuse are challenging issues, the decision of the mother to terminate pregnancy because of the inability to cater for their child’ welfare should be respected. This would minimize incidents of getting unwanted pregnancies, in order to reduce social problems in society. Moreover, abortion should be legalized to get rid of unwanted pregnancies resulting from rape. However, since women are the people affected directly by the pregnancies, their opinions should be respected and they should not be compelled to carry unwanted pregnancies. References Feinberg, J. (ed). (1973). The problem of abortion. California: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Jordan, M. (1986). The moral community and persons. Philosophy Today, 30(2): pp 12-97. Petchesky, R. (1984). Abortion and woman’s choice. New York: Longman. Thomson, J.J. (1971). A defense of abortion. Philosophy and Public Affairs,1(1): pp 45-66. Tooley, M. (1983).Abortion and infanticide: Oxford: Clarendon Press. Warren, A. (1989). The moral significance of birth. Hypatia, 4(3): pp 30-75. Read More