My Arguments And View On Pro-Choice Abortion

I am writing this paper in order to argue my view on pro-choice abortion. Many people who are pro-life lack compassion for women who have found themselves with a difficult and life-altering choice to make. I believe that abortion should be legal in all states until the beginning of the third trimester and I firmly hold the opinion that this delicate issue is no one’s concern but the people involved in the situation because everyone’s is different. Abortion is permissible until the end of the second trimester, and should be legal under all circumstances because a woman has the right to her own body and everything that happens to it, with it, or inside it. This is opposite of the views of conservative philosopher, Mary Anne Warren, who argues on the premise that the fetus is a person with a right to live, which is a right even the mother cannot confiscate.

I have extremely liberal views when it comes to this vastly controversial issue. There are many different situations that may force a woman to make this difficult choice. For example, women who are victims of rape and incest should never be ashamed of not wanting to be a host for the awful creature that was forced inside of them. These situations go hand in hand with philosopher, Judith Jarvis Thomson's, violinist analogy from her article “A Defense of Abortion” in which a young woman is kidnapped and hooked up to a famous violinist’s body. If she detached herself, she would walk away free and the musician would die. However, if she stayed connected to him for nine months, she would have saved him from his ailment and he would survive. In this situation, it is absolutely morally permissible to walk away(get an abortion) because she was never asked if she wanted to be connected to this person for nine months, she was simply taken and attached. She doesn’t have any actual moral obligation to stay connected to them and if she did, it was out of the goodness of her own heart.

Another example given by many women for needing an abortion is that the child’s life is endangering the mother’s life. This is another area where author, Judith J. Thomson and I see eye to eye when she says, “in a sum, a woman surely can defend her life against the threat to it posed by the unborn child, even if doing so involves its death”(178). This kantianism-based view, should be an obvious reason for abortion because it is essentially a version of self defense and women have rights to their own bodies and what happens with it or to it. The final reason that is commonly given for needing abortions is that the mother is not ready for the responsibility that comes with a child or she is financially unfit to bear the weight of another person. In my opinion, this is the most moral case of all. These strong women are willing to admit that they cannot handle the personal responsibility (regular or financial) of raising another person or providing them with the life they deserve.

Above all, women should never have to justify why they are getting an abortion. Having a say in what happens to your body is not only a moral right, but a basic human right (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).This fundamental right triumphs over the undeveloped clump of cells’ right to be an unwanted host in the woman’s body. I have always firmly believed that this moral debate has always been an unnecessary one because, it is principally the mother’s decision.

There are many conservative philosophers who oppose my free point of view but most of their points are either disproved by science or infringe on the mother’s rights. Their main argument being that the clump of underdeveloped cells is an entity with full human rights. Philosopher, Mary Anne Warren, brought up the controversial argument of “what characteristics make a person”. She and many other conservatives follow this line of thought; “1. The unborn is an innocent person from conception. 2. It is wrong to kill an innocent person. 3. Abortion is the killing of an innocent person. 4. Therefore, abortion is wrong.”(170) In my opinion, along with renowned philosophers like Judith J Thomson, this is not what makes a person. Fetuses are not conscious and are completely unaware of their surroundings. They could not live outside of the womb, thus proving them not to be humans, but parasites feeding on a host until they are ready to survive on their own. They are a clump of underdeveloped cells and at this point, they are still an actual part of the mother. With that being said, it is the mother’s right to do what she pleases with it. Implying that the fetus is a person potentially infringes on the mother’s rights(who is a conscious living person), which include the freedom to do what she pleases with her own body. Therefore, the mother’s rights triumph over the underdeveloped fetus.

Another argument that has been made in favor of abolishing abortion is that the fetus can feel the pain of being killed. This myth has been debunked by scientists who say that a fetus cannot feel pain until the 28th week after gestation(the first week of the third trimester). This is because the baby’s brain has not developed the proper nerve pathways in their brains that allows them to feel pain. However, abortions past the 28th week are illegal in most states and difficult to obtain.

The final argument given by pro-life supporters is that the majority of modern abortions are performed in order to avoid any potential “inconvenience” to the mother, rather than being linked to incest or rape. This argument may be statistically true, but the reasoning behind an abortion should not matter. Women have a right to their bodies that cannot be infringed upon, end of story. If you try to force women to carry these children to term, there will be a spike in self-induced abortions which are extremely harmful to the desperate mother. If they don’t take drastic measures to get rid of the fetus and they actually carry it to term, the likelihood of that child having a good life is slim. Women don’t have abortions because they are convenient; they have them to prevent the potential harm they could cause to another human’s life. The activism for pro-life ends as soon as the child is born and the children are left to fend for themselves. So ask yourself, wouldn’t you rather allow women to have a safe procedure done without being villainized, so she can live her life to the fullest and have children when she is ready? Or would you rather force the woman to carry the child against her will only to have the child come out to potentially suffer throughout all of his or her life?

I am proud to fight for the opposing moral philosophers to see my point of view; that it is not morally right to force a woman into carrying a baby to term. Much like renowned philosopher, Judith Jarvis Thomson, exudes in her theoretical story of the famous violinist using a kidnapped woman as his host. Which is similar to the situation women are in when they are denied abortion rights. Abortion should be legal in all states (until fetuses feel pain at 28 weeks after fertilization) because women have the right to their bodies and everything that happens to it. I hope some pro-life believers come to grow some compassion for women struggling with this difficult decision.

Part II: Ethical Dilemmas Applied to Real Life

My ethical dilemma came about two years ago, when I was a sophomore in high school. A very close friend of mine asked to sit next to me for a test that she had forgotten to study for the night before. I had to think fast because we had that class right after our free period. I told her I would have to think it over while she studied and I would let her know. My thought process went from “it’s okay, it may even benefit me!” to “I know that all forms of cheating are wrong”.

At first, I was attracted to the idea of helping my friend pass her test. I was demonstrating “care ethics” or a perspective on moral issues that emphasizes close personal relationships and moral virtues. This example is without a doubt care ethics because I would never even consider putting my own grade at risk for someone I didn’t know/like. I also wanted to help her because she was my friend and I want to help my friends in any way possible. However, once I had realized it wasn’t my fault that she didn’t study, I started thinking more selfishly.

I then took to the self-centered ethical egoism stance. In my head, I hadn’t studied much either and she was far smarter than me. If I didn’t know a question, there was a strong chance she would know what the answer was and I would get that extra point. So in the end, I might even benefit from this arrangement too. I really needed a good grade on this test, but I knew it wasn’t morally right to cheat on anything. I then started to think of the morality of cheating all together. Neither of our grades would be an accurate representation of what we had learned but neither of us would have to pay the repercussions because we would both pass. This all hinges on the chance that the teacher doesn’t catch us sharing answers because then we would have consequences.

My final thought process before I gave her my answer was that of a consequentialist. If we got caught cheating (which was likely to happen in a small classroom) we would both fail the test and face many other repercussions. The definition of the consequentialist theory is that what makes an action right or wrong is determined by its consequences There are obviously very harsh punishments for those who decide to cheat on tests because it is wrong to cheat on tests. After taking this final point of view into consideration I had my answer ready.

Although I was sad I couldn’t practice my care ethics in helping my close friend out, it was my consequentialist ideas that prevented me from allowing her to cheat off my test and having to face potential repercussions.

Works Cited

• Boonin, David. A Defense of Abortion. Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005.
• Vaughn, Lewis. Doing Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues. 4th ed., W.W. Norton & Company, Independent and Employee-Owned, 2016.