GP#2 Abortion

Okay here i have it, i'd do one on abortion first before going on to animal welfare, because its still fresh in my head.

So, I'm in favour of abortion in general, and i disagree to putting a ban on it.

There're many issues centering around abortion i've realised, but the first one that easily (and very conveniently) comes to mind, is that the foetus has the right to live, and that we do not have the right to deliberately terminate its life. It being the argument that many people have at the tip of their tongues, is of course extremely vulnerable to come under fire since its such a sweeping statement that has little rational thought to back it up.

Firstly i'd like to point out that i do not object to the proposition that the foetus has a right to live, but many confuse the foetus's right to live with the right to what is needed to sustain life (which it does not have). That right remains solely under the authority of the mother. In events when interests clash and the mother wishes for a termination of a pregnancy, it should be allowed given that the mother is full aware that she is exercising her right over the foetus's, hence making abortion a morally permissible act, although its moral desirability is questionable. Consider the various scenarios that an abortion might come into play:

1. The mother's life is in danger.
Save the mother, abort the child. To put it in a shallow way, without the mother the child cannot live anyway. From another perspective (ignoring the tangible aspect of the mother being a vessel of life for the foetus), this is a case of a doctrine of double effect. Pro-life proponents can be placated by this reasoning: the death of the foetus is merely the side effect of a medical treatment to save the mother's life. The mother has as much right to life as the foetus has.

2. Unwanted pregnancies.
(a) The mother took the risk of unprotected sex willingly.
I object to abortion here. The foetus shouldn't be made to suffer the consequences of the actions of the mother. The mother should take responsibiliy and carry the foetus to full term, followed by dutifully providing the child with a good life. Granted, the fact that the foetus still doesn't have the right to what is needed to sustain life, but in this case i feel that the somewhat irrational, but extremely moral, objections that society has towards abortion is very valid.

(b) The mother was impregnated unwillingly (eg. failed contraception, rape)
Go and abort. Not only will the birth of the child result in heavy disruptions to the mother's life due to its unplanned nature (think education, social life, career, financial aspects), it is unlikely that the mother will be physically and mentally prepared to provide the child with a life that it would otherwise deserve.

(c)Mental/physical disability in the foetus.
It is morally permissible to abort, given that it would likely affect the mental health of the mother. It gets trickier when the law has to take a stand on the issue. Legalising it will suggest that the disabled are of a lower value than healthy people, and the road is set towards an onslaught of discrimination. I.........have no take on this because i'm clueless.
Mental disabilities are interesting. While (again), morally permissible for the mother to call for an abortion, it would otherwise be rather selfish if the mother has got the resources to provide for a child with special needs. The mother would then be terminating the pregnancy for her convenience, hence implicitly degrading the sanctity of human life. Put it this way: if a mentally disabled person was blissfully unaware of the potential life that he could be having, given that he was always well taken care of, he wouldn't exactly be suffering--- the caretakers would.

So, the counter for all the points that i've raised thus far:
When talking about an issue on life, there isn't room for rational argument. Life shouldn't have a worth attached to it, and thinking about abortion in such an economical and calculated manner isn't right. There isn't a reason why, its just not right.

The sanctity of life has, and will always be, highly regarded. However instead of escaping from such a sticky issue by choosing to brush it over, there are many many practical stakes on the table that have to be adressed. I'm going to take such a pragmatic stand only because there'll be an immense impact on the life of the mother tied to this decision, which definitely cannot be dismissed lightly.


There're a few sides to abortion now that we've covered the main course, which i find quite interesting also hm.

1. Abortion is closely tied to gender equality.
Many societies have the generic stereotype that once a man has sown his wild oats, thats that, and the rest of the burden is left to the lady (ah pity i haven't read up on gender equality, because there're so many things tied to history that'll take too long to catch up on). To not legalise abortion is to not place women on an equal standing as men in the freedom of choice on the degree of responsibility they have for their progeny.

2. Laws are an unavoidable element of society. In trying to maximise welfare, some corners inevitabily have to be cut.
Bans remove the risk of being at the top of a slippery slope down to eugenics, but this puts many at risk by forcing them to use illegal methods. Then again, legalising indicates the state's approval for indiscriminate killings, which reduces people's respect for life.


Okay and lastly, peripheral issues on abortion that i'd not touch because i can't think of any convincing argument for them:
- Religion. God is our creator.
- How old should a foetus be before it is considered as a 'moral person'?
- To what extent is contraception abortion? (eg. the moring-after pill, intra-uterine devices)


All in all, i draw the line at aborting for convience, instead of aborting for legit reasons like prospective quality of lives (of both mother and child). The law has little to play in such a personal issue like this, so i say just do away with the ban, and legalise abortion. Doctors, in full honour of their ethical code, should be the main regulating body here, given that they are best aware of the personal circumstances of the patient, and that they are bound by their pledge of honour with the Hippocratic Oath.