Jeppsen 1
Nick Jeppsen
Alan Chandler
Pols 1100-003
9 April 2015
Should Abortion Be Restricted?
After reading both Mary Gordon and Robert P. George’s separate views on if abortion
should be restricted I have created my own personal opinion while siding with Mary Gordon.
Mary Gordon, the legal writer, believes that “having an abortion is a moral choice that women
are capable of making for themselves, that aborting a fetus in not killing a person, and that
antiabortionists fail to understand female sexuality”. (Gordon) While Robert P. George believes,
“since each of us was a human being from conception, abortion is a form of homicide and should
be banned”. (George) While both parties have valid arguments I believe that Gordon’s argument
holds up better then George’s.
People depict women who have abortions to be selfish or irresponsible. These people
need to realize that these decisions that these women are making are connected to other choices
that a woman makes in the course of their adult life. When people think of a woman who has had
an abortion they think of someone who would rather abort their unborn child so they don’t miss
out on a vacation. Or of a ghetto teenage girl who just wasn’t smart enough to say “no” to sex.
Something to keep in mind is that these people are adults and they are very capable of making
Jeppsen 2
decisions. Especially ones that will affect their lives forever. All kinds of women in all kinds of
situations make the very hard to decision to abort a pregnancy.
In “The Ontology of the Fetus” portion of Gordon’s paper she writes about how
antiabortionists claim that aborting a fetus is considered “murder”. But when is a fetus
considered human? It’s clear that the fetus is alive but is it “human”? An example that Gordon
gives is that human hair and red blood cells are both living things and everyone understands that
the nature of these things does not rank equally with an entire personal experience. So when is
aborting a fetus considered murder? When is that fetus a human being and no longer just a fetus?
When a woman loses a pregnancy in the early stages of said pregnancy we call it a miscarriage.
When a woman loses a pregnancy in the late stages of the pregnancy we call it a stillbirth. There
is a clear difference between the two as both are treated differently. If someone wanted to bury
and mark a grave for a miscarriage after only six weeks of pregnancy we may be seriously
concerned about said person’s mental state. While on the other hand if someone wanted to flush
a stillborn that was seven months into development down the toilet that person would look to be
inhumane. Antiabortionists argue that a life is a life and should be treated the same no matter
what; and yet we don’t. I believe Gordon puts it best when she states, “There are no prayers for
the mater of a miscarriage, nor do we feel there should be. Even a Catholic priest would not
baptize the issue of an early miscarriage.” (Gordon)
Jeppsen 3
On the other hand George argues that a fetus is considered human as soon as it is
conceived, “I believe that the pro-life position is superior to the pro-choice position precisely
because the scientific evidence, considered honestly and dispassionately, fully supports it. A
human being is conceived when a human sperm containing twenty-three chromosomes fuses
with a human egg also containing twenty-three chromosomes producing a single- cell human
zygote containing, in the normal case, forty-six chromosomes that are mixed differently from the
forty-six chromosomes as found in the mother or father.” Although George’s opinion comes
from a very scientific standpoint I believe that Gordon has more evidence and examples of a
fetus not being considered a human and having rights until a certain point into development.
A section of Robert P. George’s paper is titled “God’s Reasons”. Throughout this portion
of the paper George discusses that the majority of people that support pro-life support it because
of their religious belief. Although this is not why George is pro-choice I think that religion is
completely irrelevant in this matter. There should be a thick line between church and state. So
just because abortion is considered a sin according to religion does not mean there should be
restrictions put on it. George goes on to agree with me and Stanley Fish of Duke University.
You can see that when George writes about Fish’s ideas, “this question is not a “religious” or
even metaphysical one: it is rather “scientific”. (George)
When I first chose this topic I was very one sided because I believed that almost all
arguments for pro-choice were tied to religion. George showed me other-wise when he agreed
that this decision should not be based on religion but solely on science. I’m glad he showed me
Jeppsen 4
this side of the argument but it was not enough to make me change my mind. Although each
Gordon and George have very solid points I believe that Gordon’s evidence and examples
trumped George’s.