FREE ESSAY ON ABORTION

ABORTION

There are few issues that can cause as many heated and sometimes, irrational, debates than
that of abortion. The issue strikes at the very heart of an individual's religious and
philosophical beliefs. Does a woman have the right to terminate a pregnancy? Is it moral
to do so in any circumstance? Is a fetus a living human being? The debate has raged for
nearly thirty years and there does not seem to be any end to the controversy that often
results in violence. Irrational individuals who have committed murder want to make their
beliefs heard and followed. 
In response to the question, some people have resulted to using qualifiers: no, abortion
is not moral except if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest is one response
heard, in fact, some state laws contain this condition. A very large and strong
contingent of people say a very loud and aggressive no, abortion is not moral, not under
any circumstance and at least as many say a very loud aggressive yes, abortion is moral;
it is the woman's choice regarding her own body. The issue of abortion is filled with
emotion. 
Despite the eloquent arguments and the seemingly reasonable reasons supporting abortion,
abortion is not moral. It is taking the life of a living being and that can never be
considered a moral act. There is more and more support for this opinion. As the Roe v
Wade decision reached its 25th anniversary, in fact, there was a growing sentiment in
this country that abortion is murder. Perhaps this swell of support against abortion is
due to the realization that legal abortion has prohibited 35 million humans from being
born (First Things, 1998). 
In her article, A Defense of Abortion, Judith Jarvis Thomson offered a number of reasons
to support abortion. She also used a number of analogies to support her opinions. Thomson
conceded the point that opponents of abortion make: a fetus is a person from the moment
of conception but she said that abortion is morally permissible even it means killing the
fetus and offered a number of analogies and/or hypothetical situations to demonstrate her
point. Some of her analogies border on the absurd such as attempting to compare a young
boy who does not want to share his box of candy with his younger brother to a pregnant
woman who does not want to share her body with this unwanted fetus. It is simply not a
rational comparison. Equally absurd would be to counterargue that the little brother is
already living, the aborted fetus has not been given the opportunity to live. 
Ronald Dworkin argued that the law should not call abortion murder. For him, this is a
First Amendment issue that deals with the separation of church and state. Dworkin's
rationale focused on the fact that most religions do not agree on when life actually
begins - at conception, as a four-month fetus or at birth. He alleged that abortion was a
religious decision and as such should not be restricted by the law. Pope John Paul II, on
the other hand, left no question about abortion in the Catholic Church. The Pope has
often argued vigorously that abortion is murder and condemns laws that permit abortion as
being intrinsically unjust, lacking in authentic juridical validity, and not being
morally binding (Thomson, 1996; p. htm).
Dworkin said that there should be an agreement on the sanctity of life, that there is an
intrinsic value of life regardless of how it was conceived. But, Dworkin also promotes a
metric of disrespect which allows him to distinguish between better and worse abortions
and to justify some of the most accepted exceptions to a moral objection to abortion,
such as in the cases of incest and rape. In other words, Dworkin does not take a legal
stand. He does, however, take a religious stand and bases his arguments from that point
of view. He also allows himself a comfortable escape from addressing the morality of
abortion by giving exceptions -- his metric of disrespect which one could also call his
line of tolerance. It is like a space within which the morality of abortion has no place.
If it is a case of rape or incest, abortion is a moral act, otherwise, it is not a moral
act. How can an act be moral sometimes and not other times? 
The fact is that the entire pro-abortion argument has consistently been based on lies.
This is especially when the medical needs of aborting have been used as the basis for
aborting a fetus. Supporters consistently use euphemisms such as terminating a pregnancy
which is dishonest. They also say that the fetus is only a 'potential' human being as if
this fetus might be born as something other than a human being. They argue that the
decision concerning abortion should be between the woman and her doctor but they fail to
point out that in the greater majority of cases, the woman has never met the doctor who
will perform the abortion until the time of the procedure. 
Even in the very beginning of the legal controversy, the supporters of Roe v Wade argued
were misled; they believed legal abortion would result in fewer unwanted children born,
there would be fewer children living in poverty, and there would be less child-abuse.
None of these predictions has materialized. It only takes reading the daily newspaper to
show these arguments were empty wishes or hopes. In reality, the opposite has happened.
The numbers of children abused and neglected is increasing exponentially. The number of
children living in poverty grows every day. Based on these two facts, the number of
unwanted children being born has not been reduced proportionately with the population
growth, it has increased. 
In fact, the issue of abortion has become even more horrible. Today, there is a procedure
called partial birth which simply means that the fetus is a human being and there can be
no doubt about this. It is clear and plain murder. 
Technology continues to advance at great speed. There may well soon be a way to take the
fetus live from the mother's womb, place that fetus in an artificial womb and have it
grow to infant-hood. Where will the pro- and anti-abortionists stand on this issue? Will
this act be moral? The fetus will not be killed; it will live and grow. This will still
not make the act moral. The fetus may continue to live but it is denied the nutrients and
nurturance of its biological mother. This would surely have a negative effect on the
mental and psychological growth of the infant, if not his or her physical growth. The
fetus inside its mother's womb gains a lot more than just the chemicals and nutrients it
needs to grow and develop; there is an emotional bond that occurs even when the pregnant
woman does not want the child. If and when this technology becomes available, we will
have entered a terrible science fiction movie, one in which there are even fewer morals
than exist today. This hypothesis, in fact, reminds this writer of the analogy Thomson
used of the famous violin player taking the kidney functions of a kidnapped and unwilling
donor. This fetus will be taken unwillingly from its host, kidnapped and taken from the
warmth of its natural womb only to be placed in an artificial environment. If life begins
at conception, which even Thomson concedes, then that life has a right to say what should
happen to it. Since it is not capable of defending itself, others must help; it is like
fighting for the underdog. The fetus is the underdog that must be protected against all
forms of damage and ultimately death. 
Bibliography
Cornell, Professor Drucilla. Abortion. Boston Review Forum, (1996): at
http://www-polisci.mit.edu/BostonReview/BR20.4/Cornell.html
Dworkin, Ronald. Life's Dominion (New York: Vintage Books 1994).
Fung, Archon. Making Rights Real: Roe's Impact on Abortion Access. Politics and Society,
(1993): v21, n4.
Pope John Paul II. The Gospel of Life [Evangelium Vitae]. (New York: Random House 1995).
Thomson, Judith Jarvis. A Defense of Abortion. In Social and Personal Ethics, ed. by
William H. Shaw. (Wadsworth Publishing Company 1996).
Thomson, Judith Jarvis. Abortion. Boston Review, (1997): at
http://www-polisci.mit.edu/BostonReview/BR20.3/thomson.html