Because I finished the first day of my second semester in college, I decided to post the last *relevant* essay from the Fall semester. The following is my final essay in Philosophy 120 Intro to Ethics, which discusses an ethical viewpoint towards the issue of abortion. I included the arguments from a Stand to Reason conference I recently attended, as well as the claims of some professional philosophers and my own viewpoint. I hope you enjoy and gain a new perspective!
Is abortion ethically permissible or does a fetus deserve moral consideration? Many acknowledge that a fetus deserves regard, but only after the will of the mother is determined. These people, labelled as pro-choice, don’t exactly want babies to die, but for a woman to have the right to privately choose if she’d like to continue her pregnancy. Pro-choice arguments are often supported by a fetus’s lack of development and independence. However, considering arguments from philosophers such as Peter Singer, Margaret Olivia Little, and Judith Jarvis Thomson, I would argue that the right for a baby to live matches and surpasses the will of the mother.
To begin, Singer argues that equal moral treatment should be given to non-human animals because of their capacity to feel pleasure and pain. If this is a proper way to consider animals, it may be concluded that this concept should be applied to human babies as well, even those in the womb. In this case, extending equal moral consideration from humans to animals would surely include babies, despite their level of development.
However, some argue that a baby in the womb does not deserve the status of “personhood” or ethical treatment. In this case, personhood can be defined as the state of being an individual that possesses human traits, feelings, responsibilities, and rights. This is a controversial subject in philosophy, religion, politics, and law. It’s been questioned in the context of abortion, slavery, animal rights, ect. According to this theory, a mother’s interests and desires surpass that of the fetus because it’s not considered a human being during the early stages of development. The state that validates a fetus’s personhood is very controversial. Some claim the third trimester is when a baby should be treated as a person. Others argue that personhood is granted at birth.
With that said, I believe a fetus inherits its personhood at the moment of conception, when life and development begin. According to Singer’s theory regarding treatment towards animals, sentience is the key to determining whether a creature deserves equal consideration or not. This means the being’s capacity to feel pain and pleasure, as well as their perspective, determines human relations with them. Because a fetus begins to feel pain at eight weeks gestation, abortions should not be done after that point, according to neurobiology professor, Dr. Maureen Condic (Ertelt).
Be that as it may, Little believes that a fetus gains status and moral protection as it develops. She agrees with the statement “even at early stages of pregnancy, developing human life has an important value worthy of respect; its status grows as it does, increasing gradually until, at some point late in pregnancy, the fetus is deserving of the very strong moral protection due newborns” (Little). Although her rejection of an “all or nothing” moral consideration is a more realistic view of the situation, it may still be argued that a person is a person, despite the size and development level. Therefore, it deserves the same moral consideration throughout the various stages of growth.
In fact, Singer acknowledges that a being shouldn’t be discounted because it has different abilities or seems inferior to people. A common argument among the pro-choice community is that a fetus’s lack of development and independence determine the mother’s dominant right to keep or terminate the pregnancy. However, under Singer’s theory, the differences between a human adult and fetus should not dismiss the sentience and viewpoint of the baby. Additionally, personhood should not be kept from a fetus due to its size and environment, according to Alan Shlemon, a Christian speaker. This is because size, development, environment, and dependency are not equivalent to value. For example, men are often larger than women, but that doesn’t make either more valuable. Furthermore, a four-year-old child is less developed than a forty-year-old adult, but neither would be deemed acceptable to kill. If it’s unacceptable to kill a baby outside of the womb, even in cases of premature birth, it should follow that killing a baby inside the womb is also morally wrong.
Additionally, every creature undergoes various stages of development, looking incredibly different through them all. It is natural for things to change, just as an acorn is in a different stage from an oak tree. Though, Thomson argues that this is a “slippery-slope” argument (Munson). With that said, the slippery-slope fallacy implies that the claim is unfounded, lacking rational arguments, and impulsively following one event to another. The acorn to oak tree argument is valid, though, considering that it’s a natural and inevitable event. As an acorn develops into a sprout, and then into a tree, a human embryo grows from fetus to baby, and ultimately to adult under the right natural circumstances. Beings do not transform from one thing to another; they always remain the same creature. Moreover, this common illustration shows that, though the acorn looks completely different from its mature version, it’s still the same species. Living beings always produce their own kind, such as dogs with puppies.
Not to mention, the fetus’s need to access its mothers’ resources do not discount its moral worth. Value exists despite dependency. People on life support, as well as autistic adults, are no less of people just because of their unfortunate circumstances. The lack of independence also extends to young children, who likely couldn’t survive without guardians to support, guide, and provide for their needs.
However, using Singer’s theories towards the issue of abortion could lead to some problems because of his Utilitarian stance. This means he believes in equal consideration when performing a correct action, and regards rights as a made up concept. However, in this case, rights and equal consideration are similar. Though Singer wouldn’t acknowledge that a fetus has the right to live, he would likely agree that the pain caused in an abortion outweighs the pain of giving birth. And according to Utilitarianism, the action that brings about the least amount of pain should be taken. Various methods are used to carry out an abortion, but all are painful and potentially dangerous. Some of these procedures include vacuum extraction, tearing body parts using forceps, burning the flesh with a saline injection, or chemically inducing contractions, which violently crush the baby to death. Additionally, in the event that an abortion harms the mother, her pain should also be considered. Of course, in these calculations, one should acknowledge the pain of having to care for the child, but there’s always the option of adopting out the baby, which makes that calculation irrelevant. Besides, because of the similar interests of the mother and fetus, it should be considered that people generally wish to not be killed, especially by such violent and painful means.
To conclude, due to the sentience and personhood of a fetus, a baby should be granted equal consideration, despite its degree of development. When examining levels of pain and pleasure in both the mother and fetus, the negative affects on the baby outweigh those of the mother. With all things considered, including the arguments from various philosophers, it’s clear that abortion is ethically wrong, no matter the circumstances.
Works Cited
Ertelt, Steven. “Expert Tells Congress Unborn Babies Can Feel Pain Starting at 8 Weeks.” LifeNews.com. LifeNews.com, 23 May 2013. Web. 15 Dec. 2015.
Margaret Little. “Abortion & the Margins of Personhood.” Rutgers Law Journal 39 (2008): 331- 348.
Munson, Ronald, comp. Intervention and Reflections: Basic Issues in Medical Ethic. 5th Edition ed. Belmont; Wadsworth, 1996. 69-80. Print.
Shlemon, Alan. “The S.L.E.D. Test.” Stand to Reason. Stand to Reason APR, 13 Mar. 2014. Web. 15 Dec. 2015.
Lady Liberty 