Abortion

Abortion
Abortion has remained among the most controversial issues of contemporary times especially with the start of ideas that have come to be termed as liberal and progressive. There have been diverse, but contrasting views regarding this topic. Depending on one’s school of thought, the argument on abortion could be won on any front. The biggest question has been when life begins. Maybe, with the establishment of this mystery, it would then be possible to rule on whether abortion is ethical or not. Being a contentious issue, a lot of scholars have given their various views in an attempt to raise awareness over the same.
Mary Anne Warren has been very keen in dissecting the various controversial issues regarding abortion (Steffen 60). On her part, Warren has carefully examined the various questions that arise from abortion. She questions whether abortion is entirely wrong especially in the event of unwanted pregnancies. The author questions whether the contemporary regulations on abortion follow the moral and ethical values. In her article, she portrays prohibition on abortion as having arisen from various concerns such as medical issues that arise from abortion. However, with the improvement of abortion methods in health facilities, it then becomes difficult to substantiate the ban on abortion with this argument. Mary Anne Warren has failed to put into perspective the various details on the health risks of abortion (Farrell 78).
Despite the fact that abortion methods have improved in contemporary times, there are still numerous dangers of carrying out abortions.

Further, most of the unwanted pregnancies are among underage girls who choose not to use recognized medical centers for the fear of victimization. Warren has shown great bias in her analysis on abortion by choosing to focus majorly on pro-choice arguments regarding this topic. In what is almost entirely true, she argues that if actions were to form a basis for judgment while putting into perspective their consequences, then it would be easy to say that the restriction on abortion is flawed (Warren 184-186) The absence of safe, accessible and effective contraception can be blamed for the numerous unwanted pregnancies we see today. Women fail to access these services, yet, when they become pregnant we rush to judge them on whether they choose to keep the pregnancy or not. The consequences of unplanned pregnancies are numerous. In fact, it is the numerous unplanned pregnancies that led to poverty during the start of the 20th century (Farrell 21). Moreover, there is a group of women who choose the career path in contemporary times. It becomes difficult to balance between being a mother and working like their male counterparts. As such, these women desire small families. It is right to claim that the working class of women has access and education on contraceptives. However, it would be prudent to put into perspective the fact that none of the contraceptive methods is 100 percent effective. According to Warren’s analysis on this pro-choice issue, contraception and abortion are two intimate entities in the context of the working class of women and those still pursuing their education (Moller 45).
Nonetheless, too much leaning in this direction would make ones thinking a little clouded on the factual details on abortion. Opponents have questioned whether the use of abortion is the most effective method for avoiding such consequences explored above. As much as some of the unwanted pregnancies are as a result of rape and defilement, it is valid to state that most of them are due to voluntary behavior on the part of the affected parties (Steffen 23). In this context, critics of abortion think that women who become pregnant as a result of irresponsible sexual behavior are merely evading the responsibility for their bad actions. While keeping this in mind, many people would agree that being celibate is a difficult thing. Moreover, every single woman is vulnerable to abortion. As such, on would easily argue that the combination of abortion and effective contraception become valid options in attempting to deal with unwanted pregnancies. But, even pro-choice advocates think that abortion in this context need to the explored on whether there is a moral basis for the same (Warren 185-186). Women rights and abortion have formed the basis of numerous arguments in recent times. The topic of women rights is itself contentious. Women rights activists are of the view that fairness ought to be observed in dealing with human rights. It is basic knowledge that human rights include the right to life, freedom of choice and right to liberty, especially regarding choice with consequences towards one’s life. Feminists have always seen women as being silent in issues that majorly affect them (Warren 185).
According to Catherine Keller, status quo has for a long time designed the society in such a way that women are called upon to be selfless beings. In this sense, women are expected to sacrifice their life goals for the sake of family and other things as demanded by the society. However, according to her, this has made the society more selfish in dealing with issues, especially those affecting the women directly. The view that women should universally be selfless has been used arbitrarily by the society to dictate to them what is morally right and what is not. The ethics card has always been played whenever trying to justify the prohibition on abortion. However, feminists such as Catherine Keller provide a counter argument to this old principle. In her opinion, feminist spirituality is an important resource in the argument of ethics with regards to abortion. Feminist spirituality enables the women to strike a balance between interdependence and audacity. In this, the women have the power to question the value of life especially in the case in which it is paid by death. In fact, Carol Gillian takes an even more radical approach regarding feminism and the question of ethics. She argues that the opinion that women need to loosen their hold on ethic of care and spice it up with the masculine principles of ethical justice (Warren 185-186).
Carol Gillian seems to fault the basis of religious ethics especially in regards to women. According to her, religious ethics have numerous biases in the sense that all the ethical stories in the Bible have sidelined women. Most of the spiritual traditions have put men as the focus of their stories (Moller 55). Women have been adversely ignored even when addressing general issues. In fact, this is true in almost all religions, from Christianity to Islam to Buddhism. The scholar has then brought to question the reason in which women have been sidelined right from the ancient tales to contemporary civilizations. According to her, she believes that the answer is quite close to complexities. Women have often been regarded as household beings, responsible for housekeeping and childbearing. The childbearing part is especially important in the abortion debate. Feminists think that childbearing has restricted women to the homes preventing them from advancing in education and in their careers. The legalization of abortion would easily reverse this unfortunate reality for women. A lot of women have had to (temporarily or permanently) drop out of school due to unplanned pregnancies even despite using contraception.
It is increasingly becoming a popular view that denying women the right to abort and choose when to keep a pregnancy is a great violation of their basic rights and liberty as human beings. Further, physical integrity, which is a right for every individual, is greatly violated by the hard lined stand on the prohibition of abortion. Moller understands that it is important to observe the fact that pregnancy, even when voluntary, poses a very big health risk to the mother (Moller 11). The risk is even further magnified in the event of an unwanted pregnancy. Unwanted pregnancies have numerous risks, among them depression which comes after conception. The other options to abortion are by far less equal. For instance, when a mother chooses to keep the pregnancy and surrender the baby later on for adoption, it leaves a lasting emotional mark to her. People are seldom at peace with the reality that they have given their children for adoption for the mere fact that they cannot cater for them (Farrell 39).
Even when we choose to gather all the evidence in a bid to justify that fetuses have life, the suffering of women with unwanted pregnancies becomes an even larger problem. In her article, Judith Thompson claims that there is hardly any other law that justifies that one should give up their life, liberty and body integrity for the sake of preserving another life. The United States of America has been fair enough to grant women the right to choose when to keep an unwanted pregnancy. But the longtime argument about the limits of human rights still holds water (Warren 44). All rights come with a responsibility. In the context of abortion, there is an ethical responsibility that comes with the right to carry out an abortion. A lot of people think that fetuses have life and are therefore regarded as equal beings as humans. For this reason, it is only just that people carry out an abortion only in extreme cases in which options are limited. Many legal structures in current times have come to regard fetal development as being part of the stages of human life. Simply put, the growing fetus is considered as being a human being with rights equal to the fully developed person. The killing of a fetus is, therefore, considered with the same weight as the killing of a person. Increasingly, infanticides have come to have the same legal sentences as homicides. The argument questions the existence of a timeline on which these rights have to start being exercised (Warren 44).
Albert Schweitzer has brought to task pro-choice abortion activists on the morals and reverence for human life. He clearly states that every living being including microscopic organisms have the right and will to live. He notes that, anyone with an uncorrupted sense of morality would empathize with anything that has life and will strive to preserve the life. Reverence for life observes that, while all other things have been put constant, it is prudent to try and preserve life. Human life is even more noble and sacred. However, while strongly advancing this view, it is worth noting that not every life can be preserved. There are situations when killing is justified after careful analysis. This means that no one should kill without carefully exploring the various other options at their disposal. With the argument that fetuses have life, some abortions are justified by the reason of necessities. At times various compelling reasons make us want to carry out abortions. For instance, in the medical field, the life of the mother is considered a priority. In the event the life of the mother is in danger, Moller mentions that the medical practitioner is allowed to terminate the pregnancy (Moller 88).
The sentience criterion comes handy in attempting to establish the morality of prohibiting abortion (Dyer 57). Many scholars feel that it would be difficult to explore the morality of abortion without exercising this principle. Sentience refers to the ability of one having experiences, which can be verbal, visual or any other experience that stimulates perceptual memories. One can only decide on the decision of taking a life if they know or have experienced the process of losing a life. Often, the rights of two different individuals are often found to conflict. Such is the case with pregnancy. However, in pregnancy, the considerations are seen to be different yet very complex. The biological bond and relationship between the mother and her fetus is a very complex one. In this instance, Dyer emphasizes on the issue of giving equal rights while observing the principle of sentience would mean that the life and health of the mother is put at great risk (Dyer 23).
Both abortion and women rights are contemporary contentious issues that are intertwined. The rise of feminism has meant that the complex association between the two has further been compounded. Feminists have brought on board further complex arguments with regards to the balance between attempting to preserve the right of the women versus that of the unborn fetus. Feminists think that they have for a long time in history been sidelined in making decisions touching on their lives. Religion has been faulted as being responsible for choosing to ignore women (Kimport 77). As such, this has provided the basis for which women have continued to be treated as less equal beings. For a long time, many women have died in the process of giving birth, something that could be avoided by a simple abortion. It has been popularly come to be known as the process of dying in order to give life. The right to life of fetuses is subject to the life of the mothers. Strictly speaking, therefore, the life of the unborn child is not absolute. It heavily depends on whether the mother is herself healthy when keeping the pregnancy. Warren reiterates that the well-being of a mother is complex than it looks. It is not merely the heath of the mother as defined by medical terms (Warren 185-186). The well-being of the mother refers to all the other issues such as self-determination and personal liberty. It is pointless attempting to use the law in compelling a mother to keep a pregnancy she is not willing to. Research has recently shown that people who initially intend to abort will do so at all costs. This is especially important in countries in which abortion is outlawed. When a woman has an unwanted pregnancy, and she is prohibited by the law from terminating it, she will seek backstreet incompetent doctors in attempting to terminate the pregnancy (Kimport 34). As a result, she will suffer far much worse health risks compared to if abortion was legalized and this was carried out by a qualified doctor despite the various moral reasons.
Some scholars, however, think that despite the fact that fetuses may not be seen as complete humans by everyone, it is their potential to become normal humans that makes them deserve full rights (Dyer 44). This argument has however met great resistance among critics. Those against this argument have stated that potential and rights have no equal weight especially in attempting to determine whether unborn children have rights. Further, it is the thought that if a fetus has the potential to have life, then so are ova and sperms. As such, it would also be right to confer the same rights to sperms and ova as fetuses. This just shows how generalization of the argument against abortion is full of fault. However, fetuses have a different status compared to that of sperms and ova. For instance, if a mother decides that she will keep a pregnancy; her friends and close relatives will wait and anticipate the birth of this fetus. According to Moller’s opinion, this means that the potential for the fetuses is albeit different especially when considered from the social perspective (Moller 78). If a woman decides to keep a pregnancy, it means that she chooses to safeguard the potential of the fetus which will surely develop into a full human being with rights. Most women often choose to preserve the fetus without any compulsion. However, it is wrong to use to law in attempting to compel a woman to keep a pregnancy which either affects her wellbeing or which she feels will not be appropriate for her social status. Commitment is a very important factor in pregnancy (Dyer 31.). It would be difficult to be sure that an unwilling woman will do all she can to keep a pregnancy she is not willing to. In fact, the greatest question is what will happen to the child after birth in such a scenario. Mothers may kill their children due to the dislike of the fact that they were forced into carrying the pregnancy (Steffen 45).
Evidently, the issue of abortion is considered quite controversial in various societies. One would easily be tempted to approach this issue while avoiding the various other hidden facts. Strictly speaking, abortion is a very complex topic that will probably not be solved even in centuries to come. As much as abortion in many instances is morally wrong, we often choose to take a generalized stand thereby criminalizing all cases of abortion. Many people choose to debate on this topic with the fallacy that abortion is an issue that only concerns the rights of the fetuses. The rights of women are often ignored. Feminists have come out strongly to advance the fact that women have numerous rights such as the right to life and physical integrity, rights which are often not considered in such circumstances. The women ought to be allowed the right to abortion. However, as stated by many observers, no right is absolute. The right to life of an individual should not infringe on the right of another person. In this regard, the right to choose to carry out an abortion ought to only be considered in extreme case. This is on the instance that other options have fallen out of favor due to various reasons. Any life taken requires very valid justification. This is especially in the event that the rights or life of the woman are bound to be adversely affected. Choosing to terminate a pregnancy would be justifiable in this case keeping in mind that the fetuses are mostly life potential and not entirely human beings. The abortion debate is therefore one that requires great scrutiny of the context and events that are bound by the choice to keep a pregnancy. These different factors such as religion, finances and morality play a significant role in the exploration of abortion as a controversial issue in the society. As observed in Buddhism, abortion and family planning are considered to be personal decisions. Their belief in karma ensures that individuals make suitable choices while dealing with such challenging issues. It is important to understand both arguments and counterarguments of abortion before making ultimate conclusions.
Works Cited
Dyer, C. “Health Secretary Sparks Controversy By His Support For A 12 Week Limit For Abortion”. BMJ, vol 345, no. oct08 1, 2012, pp. e6796-e6796. BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.e6796.
Farrell, Courtney. The Abortion Debate. 1st ed., Edina, Minn., ABDO Pub., 2008,.
Kimport, Katrina. “(Mis)Understanding Abortion Regret”. Symbolic Interaction, vol 35, no. 2, 2012, pp. 105-122. Wiley-Blackwell, doi:10.1002/symb.11.
Moller, D. “Abortion And Moral Risk”. Philosophy, vol 86, no. 03, 2011, pp. 425-443. Cambridge University Press (CUP), doi:10.1017/s0031819111000222.
Steffen, Lloyd H. Abortion. 1st ed., Eugene, Oegon, Wipf & Stock, 2010,.
Warren, Mary Anne. “Abortion And Moral Theory”. Philosophical Books, vol 23, no. 3, 2009, pp. 184-187. Wiley-Blackwell, doi:10.1111/j.1468-0149.1982.tb00178.x.