Arguments For And Against Choosing Abortion

Although abortion has only been legal throughout the United States since 1973, it has been practiced all around the world since the beginning of humanity. For people who are pro-life, the lives of millions of human beings are at stake. For people who are pro-choice, a woman’s right to do what she wants with her body is at stake. To people who are pro-life, abortion being legal means that mass murder is legal while to people who are pro-choice, abortion being illegal means the rights of women are being infringed upon. This is not to say that all people who are pro-life do not care about women's rights and that all people who are pro-choice do not care about the value of human life. The main difference that sets apart most people who claim to be pro-life and most people who claim to be pro-choice is whether or not a fetus is a human being. No matter how deeply a pro-life person believes a fetus to be a human life or no matter how much a pro-choice person believes a fetus to be a clump of cells attached to a women’s body, it will never be possible to prove factually that a fetus does have value in the same way that it is impossible to prove that any human has value. However, one can still use logical reasoning in order to dismantle the opposition’s view and bring the opposition closer to truth.

As stated earlier, most people who are pro choice are pro choice simply because they believe that a fetus does not yet have human value. However, there are people who claim that a fetus does have value, yet remain pro choice and still others who claim that a fetus does have human value and even consider themselves to be pro life, yet they believe that abortion should be legal in cases of rape, poverty, or if the fetus is handicapped. These people attempt to make the argument of abortion based on how the baby was conceived, the mental health of the baby, or the class the baby will be brought up in, yet the argument should only consist in one thing; does a fetus have human value or not? If it does, then abortion is murder and should always be wrong. There is simply no moral way in which one can claim a fetus to have human value yet still argue for the legality of abortion. If abortion is legal under instances of rape, then the law is claiming that murder is okay as long as the person being murdered is a product of rape. If it is legal under instances of poverty, then the law is claiming that murder is okay as long as the person being murdered was born into difficult circumstances. If it is legal under instances of a mental handicap, then the law is claiming that murder is okay as long as the person being murdered is mentally handicapped. Nearly all people would claim that murdering a live baby is immoral, but there is little difference between a live baby and a nine month old fetus. So, if a human is only human if it was not a product of rape, not poor, and not handicapped, then, according to this logic, it should be legal to kill babies that do fall into one of these categories even if they have already been born. Either a fetus has human value and thus should be treated as a human being, or it is simply a collection of tissue. One’s view cannot be morally justified if it simultaneously entails a fetus to have human value yet argues for the legality of abortion, because this would mean that, according to their own view, the murder of millions of human beings every year should be legal.

Still, if one were to argue that a fetus is simply a potential human because it has not yet attributed a certain human characteristic like brain waves and thus it does not have value, then those in a coma, even with certain expectation to gain brain function in nine months, do not have value either and thus should not be protected by the law or treated as human. Others think that a fetus is not a human until it has a heartbeat, so does that mean a person whose heart cannot beat on its own and needs a pacemaker should not be valued as a human? Furthermore, it is a slippery slope and simply illogical to give value to human life after a random point of existence. For example, abortion is often made illegal after the second trimester of the women’s pregnancy. Does this mean that a fetus has absolutely no value at six months 30 days 23 hours 59 minutes and 59 seconds, but has the equivalent of human value once it is seven months old? Other people think that a fetus does not have value until it comes out of its mother, so does that mean it has no value one minute before it comes out then it is equivalent to any other human one minute later? When one begins to claim that a fetus only has human value after it has acquired a certain characteristic, one is also claiming that anyone without these characteristics, even if they are an adult who will regain these characteristics in nine months, is not a human and thus does not deserve to be treated as such. There are even many modern states and nations where a fetus does not legally have human value, yet it is also considered double murder to kill a pregnant woman. These people’s reasoning behind giving and taking away value from a living being seems illogical, and it is always an awfully slippery slope to place value on a human’s life only when it is convenient. So, it should be self evident that murder should be deemed murder if one claims that a fetus is human, and furthermore, even a fetus is merely a potential human, it should still be treated like a human similar to that of an adult who is in a coma but is sure to be fully alive in nine months.

An article that argues for a woman’s right to have an abortion is in the form of an interview that is conducted by Stephen Russell-Kraft and replied by Rebecca Todd Peters about her Christian argument for abortion. Peters continuously states that abortion is infact a moral issue. Her stance is interesting because it implies that “Having a child is a larger moral decision than having an abortion, because the moral requirements of motherhood are enormous.” This argument stands out because it flips the argument around by stating that having a child could be immoral in some cases. However, this argument is totally insufficient because it does not even attempt to suggest that the fetus is not human, so it must give an argument as to why murdering a baby would be okay. Yet, all it states is that it should be okay to kill another human being as long as it is a burden on the mother. This logic is extremely flawed and totally immoral as it would imply that all beings that place a burden on a mother should legally be able to be murdered. This argument does not protect even teenagers against abortion from their mothers. Another article that argues for abortion is written by Neil S. Siegel & Reva B. Siegel. This article is important because it makes arguments that are standard and representative of many pro-choice people. The main point made in the article is that a woman should have the right to determine what her body goes through or does not go through. The article also looks at the abortion argument from a legal perspective by looking at the United States law and its constitution which they argue grant the woman a right to have an abortion. Again, this argument is simply insufficient because it implies that murdering a human is okay as long as the human being killed places a burden on another. And secondly, although a fetus is part of its mother’s body, it is scientific fact that it is also an individual being. The logic behind this argument for abortion could also be used to argue that it should be legal for a siamese twin to kill his or her sibling. Furthermore, the constitution of the United States claims that all men are created equal and deserve rights. So again, the argument of whether or not a fetus deserves these rights should be based on whether or not they are human, not whether or not they are a product of rape, or poor, or mentally handicapped.

Rob Schwarzwalder writes an intriguing piece that defends the pro life position. This article argues against abortion from a secular standpoint which is important because although abortion is a moral issue, it is also a legal issue. Schwarzwalder emphasis scientific facts for his argument against abortion. He states that a zygote is infact a living being because it meets the requirements of the scientific definition of a being which are: metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction. It is also a being which is composed of DNA which is completely unique to any other being which makes it independent of its mother. Another argument against abortion is written by Cameron Bertuzzi, but his ideas mainly come from Don Marquis. This piece does a great job summarizing Don Marquis’ argument against abortion, which is held with high regard, but it is not known by enough people. Marquis argues that killing is wrong because it robs the person being murdered of their future. Some say that pain and suffering is why murder is bad, but a man or woman could be killed painlessly, and it would still be wrong. Also, when a person is killed, their past is not affected in any way; it is only their future that is being taken. Understanding that the theft of someone’s future is why it is wrong to kill, one does not even have to make the argument that a fetus is like a human being. It is wrong to terminate that fetus because the terminator is robbing it of its future just like when a murderer kills another human. If murder is robbing someone of their future then abortion is definitely murder.

Arguments involving abortion could derive from universal ethics (deontological, consequentialist, right relationships), subversive ethics, and ecclesial ethics. Pro-lifers often use deontological ethics to support their claim that killing is always wrong. On the other hand, pro-choicers use consequentialist arguments to support their claim that the ends justify the means when it comes to abortion. While abortion may be questionable, it is better to have the rights of women upheld by the law. Both pro-lifers and pro-choicers use right relationship ethics to support their points of view. Pro-lifers say that a society where the murder of an innocent being is always wrong and illegal would be best. Pro-choicers say that a society that performs abortions safely and legally and a society that is not overpopulated is best. Both sides of the argument also use subversive ethics to make their arguments stronger. Pro-lifers say that the unborn, especially the unborn who have illnesses, are the most vulnerable in society. Their right to life needs to be protected by the law. Pro-choicers say that women are vulnerable in society and having to miss out on opportunities because they have to carry a baby for nine months will force them to fall behind. Finally, ecclesial ethics comes to play around the topic of abortion because many religions have their own views on abortion. For example, the Catholic Church states that abortion is always wrong unless the mother’s life is in danger.

In conclusion, the argument of abortion should not be centered around rape, poverty, or mental handicap, it should only be centered around whether or not a human fetus has human value. Because as long as one believes that the murder of human beings is wrong, even if that human is a product of rape, is poor, or handicapped, then abortion too must be wrong if one considers a fetus to be a human being. Therefore, an important question that people must ask themselves is “What makes a human being a human being?” If a human being is only human if one has a heartbeat, then all of those with pacemakers are not human. If a human being is only a human being if one has brain waves, then all of those in a coma, even those who are certain to gain brain waves in nine months or shorter, are not human beings. If a human being is only a human being after it has acquired a certain characteristic then all people who do not have this characteristic, even if they are an adult, should not be protected by the law either. Furthermore, a fetus should not automatically become human after it has reached a certain age because all people are constantly developing inside and outside of their mother’s womb, and it is too illogical to claim that a fetus is a human being one second after the second trimester but is simply a clump of tissue before that second. Furthermore, even if one does not grant human value to a fetus, abortion is unquestionably robbing this fetus of years of human life in the same way murder robs an adult of years of humanity. It is such a slippery slope to decide whether or not a living human being, whether it be viewed as potential or not, has value based on how it was conceived, its wealth status, its mental health, or its age. Because if we judge whether or not a human is human based on these things, then there would be a lot of people in this world that should not be viewed as human and could potentially be killed. It is simply illogical and sickening to hold funerals for and mourn the loss of babies that were killed in the holocaust or another tragic event, yet rejoice at the fact that those babies’ mothers could have killed their babies just the same a month earlier in modern day New York.