Is Abortion Morally Right?

Abortion has been legal in England, Scotland, and Wales when the Abortion Act was passed in 1967. Changes were made under the Human Fertilisation And Embryology Act of 1990—bringing in a new upper time limit, allowing most abortions to take place up to 24 weeks. This suggests that although the fertilised egg is potential life, scientific evidence shows that the foetus is not viable (capable of independent life) in the early stages of pregnancy and is still a part of its mother. The law in England, Scotland, and Wales states that: "An abortion can be performed before the 24th week of pregnancy if two doctors agree that there is a risk to the mental and physical health to the mother and any other children in the family." This backs up the idea that if women are to lead healthy, happy lives and offer the same to any children they may have, they need to exercise control over their reproductive lives. I agree with this argument because I feel it is considerate of all possible situations—whether or not the mother is mentally or physically stable to have the child, the financial situation, how the child was conceived e.g. rape, non-consensual. Abortion is a highly controversial topic, everyone having their own individual thoughts and feelings on it. Abortion is so controversial is because it raises the fundamental question; when does human life actually begin?

Religious people, for example, Roman Catholics, might disagree with abortion because their religion teaches them that from the moment of conception, it is human life and it is sinful to kill/terminate a human life. The Bible makes several references to abortion: In Jeremiah 1:5 God says:

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born, I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations."

The verse shows that God has a plan for us even before he creates us in the womb. For man to thwart God's plan through the killing of his creation is an abomination.

Most religious leaders have installed their views on abortion at some time, but even where they have been unequivocally against abortion, this doesn’t seem to have much influence on the demeanor of the women who adhere to this religion—every society seems to have abortion and some Roman Catholic countries, for example, have very high rates of (illegal) abortion. The Pope has never proclaimed on infallible teaching on abortion, although the Pope and most bishops believe that it is morally wrong. The Roman Catholic Church is completely and totally against abortion because they believe that the foetus has equal rights to its mother. However, if the mother's life is in danger and she requires necessary life-saving treatment, although they strongly disapprove of it, an exception would be made. Pope Francis once said, "Human life is sacred and inviolable. Every civil right is based on the recognition of the first, fundamental right, the right to life, which is not subject to any condition, of a qualitive, economic and certainly not of an ideological nature." This backs up the idea that human life begins at conception and that abortion destroys respect for human life; therefore, Roman Catholics believe that abortion is morally wrong.

Another religious person, for example, a Buddhist, might disagree with abortion because Buddhists generally agree that because we are constantly being re-born, life must start at conception. One of the five precepts are refraining from harming living things. This suggests that a Buddhist would disagree with abortion as it involves killing a human life. Buddhists also believe that to escape the cycle of samsara and reach enlightenment we must accumulate positive karma. If we were to destroy another human life, this would bring about bad karma and as a result, we would continue to be trapped in samsara. As a result, a Buddhist would disagree with abortion. On the other hand, a Buddhist might agree with abortion if there were good intentions. If you act negatively but had good intentions, your karma would not change. An example of this using abortion would be if you were told that if the baby were to be born, it would be in constant pain or would not survive out the womb for long. Also, Buddhists following the noble eight-fold path would try to make decisions based on what would be the right action—what would cause the least amount of suffering. In this case, an abortion would be the best option as it reduces suffering it would create positive karma as it has the best intentions. Therefore, a Buddhist would agree with abortion.

Non-religious people, for example, utilitarians, might agree with abortion if the greatest happiness principle is applied. The Greatest Happiness Principle (GHP) is the ethical principle that an action is right in so far as it promotes the greatest amount of pleasure for the greatest amount of people, pleasure being the absence of pain. When applied to abortion, the GHP investigates different circumstances to make a decision. Some utilitarians would agree with abortion if it brings about the greatest happiness; for example, if the mother is not financially ready to bring a child into the world, this can bring about stress with the pressures of providing for her child and bitterness to the child if she felt she wasn’t ready for motherhood but had no choice. This causes pain to both the mother and child and therefore a utilitarian would agree with abortion.

The pro-choice movement generally argues that human life begins much later in pregnancy, or at birth. Although there are varied views on abortion in this movement, they all hold the fundamental belief that women should have complete control over what happens to their body. A very famous pro-choice response to the pro-life argument that a foetus has the same worth as a human child is to imagine someone stood in front of you with a newborn baby in one hand, and in the other, a petri dish containing a human embryo viable for life. They ask you to pick a hand and whatever hand you pick they will drop either the baby or the embryo. If you truly believed that the embryo was an actual human life, worth just as much as the newborn baby, then it would be impossible for you to pick a hand. However, it is obvious that you would pick the hand with the petri dish, because you can distinguish the difference between the baby and the embryo and that the baby is worth more than even a million embryos. Because, they are obviously not the same. Not morally, not ethically, not biologically. This argument is successful because it does not leave room for discussion. It forces people to recognise that life must being much later in pregnancy, or even in birth, as no one would ever choose the embryo over the newborn baby.

I have considered both sides of the subject. Whilst they both have very compelling arguments, although I would never personally have an abortion, I agree with the Pro-choice movement because I believe that people should be free to make their own choices and be in control of their own lives.