The Status of the Embryo and Abortion
The status of the embryo is extremely important when exploring the morality behind abortion because it implies whether abortion is an act of murder or not. There are several suggestions of the status of an embryo:
- Natural Law/Christianity
- Aboriginal People
- Science (viability)
- Judith Jarvis Thomson
Personhood – Life begins when develop into a person
Personhood essentially suggests that when a human being is a person acts such as abortion become murder otherwise they are acceptable. This is a secular approach to medical ethics and is a subjective one too (that is perhaps one of its problems).
Mary Anne Warren was an American writer and philosopher who died last year (2010). She put forward a criteria and said to be a person you don’t have too meet all the criteria but at least a few and because a foetus does not meet any of it, abortion is not murder because the foetus is not a person.
- Consciousness – foetuses are not aware of objects and events external or internal to the being and are not capable to feel pain.
- Reasoning – Foetuses cannot solve new and complex problems
- Self-motivated activity – they are not capable of activity independent to genetic or direct external control
- The capacity to communicate – the foetus does not communicate
- Self-awareness – babies are not aware of themselves.
Furthermore, she rejects the idea of the foetus as a potential person, a being which would develop these characteristics. She said predicting the potential person a foetus would develop is difficult and there remains a chance it would still not meet these criteria and hence using this argument does not work, she said following a criteria is better
Conclusion: Abortion is acceptable as a foetus is not a person
- Even young babies are not self-aware.
- Later foetuses have the ability to feel pain and communicate by kicking.
- But they have the ability to communicate and engage in reasoning.
- There is no evidence for this and it is arguably just a perception of the mind.
- Sperm has the potential to be a person yet no-one sees it as a human its the same with a foetus.
Natural law /Christianity
The tradition Roman Catholic view is the life begins at conception so abortion is absolutely always wrong. Furthermore, the Sanctity of Life argument is used to demonstrate this.
One of the primary precepts in Natural Law is life hence we have a duty to protect and abortion goes against this and again is deemed incorrect.
Natural Law only permits the act of abortion (although it is not discussed as abortion) when we have to use the principle of double affect. When two actions conflict a second criteria is used in Natural Law and that is (i) the action must not be immoral and (ii) the intentions must be good. So if a pregnant women discovers she has cervical cancer the doctor may terminate the pregnancy by performing a hysterectomy because performing a hysterectomy to protect the women’s life is not immoral and the doctors intention is not to kill the foetus but rather save the mother. This would be fine for those who subscribe to Natural Law.
-By using the Sol principle and clearly saying life begins at conception, ethic is straightforward and clear.
-Allows flexibility as well as a clear cut approach.
- If a pregnancy will lead to unhappiness on the mother’s part and there is a threat of depression etc as this is an unwanted baby then sure the principle of double affect would kick in and suggest that abortion is fine with the intention of protecting the mother.
- If you do not accept that life begins and conception and Christian teachings then this theory is not one worth abiding by.
- Again we can argue against this using GE Moore’s naturalistic fallacy just because abortion is wrong or life begins at conception it doesn’t mean we ought to not do it or abortion is wrong.
Aboriginal people believe life only begins once a person is named. A name is what distinguishes a person from a bunch of cells so unless the foetus is named abortion is arguable acceptable.
This links to the Christian belief that ensoulemt happens at conception so life begins at conception and any form termination is immoral as it is killing.
St Augustine, another theologican offers another way to approach this matter. He suggests that when the embryo ‘quicks’ i.e. starts to move, the embryo has been ensouled so any point after this (after 16/17 weeks) makes abortion murder but before that it is fine.
The embryo isn’t even viable till 24-weeks so the mother has greater rights than the embryo and should be able to grant an abortion before this point. The human fertilisation and embryology act, suggests that after 14 days when the primitive streak begins to appear the foetus is now a human in its own right.
Kant has no clear opinion on the this matter but supporters of Kantian Ethics argue that the embryo is a potential human and hence the same ethical reasoning should be applied when looking at humans so abortion is wrong.
Thomson puts forward an analogy
‘You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. … To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it’s only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.’ – taken from Wikipedia
But you still have the choice whether you want to do this or not, not to give a choice would be violate your human rights – so the same way not to offer abortion would be to violate your human rights.
- The foetus is not a separate individual like the violinist it is a part of the women’s body.
- Isn’t the choice with contraception not abortion?
- Would unplugging the violinist be the same as killing him? Is an abortion the same as killing?