ABORTION
EXAMPLE EXAM
ANSWERS
Abortion: definitions for the start of human life
and their relevance to the abortion debate,
including: potentiality, conception, primitive
streak, viability, birth.
AO1 Explain the various answers to the question when does human life begin.
(30 marks)
There are various answers to the question when does ‘human life’ begin. It is also
tied to the question’ what is meant by ‘human life’’? The term personhood is often
used to describe the point when ‘life’ becomes an individual human that is entitled
to rights. This essay will explain the various answers to when this point arrives.
Firstly there are those who believe that ‘human life’ begins at birth. Warren argues
that ‘birth, rather than some earlier point, marks the beginning of true moral status’
Birth gives a clear boundary and clear stage in the process of coming into the world
and presents a stage of recognition by others that the baby is an individual. If
potentiality is taken into account and the foetus is a person, then sperm and ovum
are persons which would also be entitled to the right to life.
The Roman Catholic answer to the question when does ‘human life’ begin is
illustrated by Pope Pius. He declared that a foetus is a ‘human person from the
moment of conception. This belief is supported by Jack Scarisbrick, of the charity
Life, who points to the fact that conception is the point at which the unique selection
of genetic information is present. It is also the moment the sperm and the egg have
combined to create a fertilized ovum. The key point though is that if ‘the unborn
child ’is allowed to continue and is successful in development will go on to be a
unique human being.
A further answer to the question when does life begin is put forward by scholars
such as Norman Ford who believe that at the point of conception, it is too early to
say that an individual ‘human life’ has begun. They argue that this point is reached
with the presence of the primitive streak on the fourteenth day after fertilization, as
the point at which a unique human being (life) can be said to exist, albeit in potential
form. The primitive streak provides the structure around which embryonic structures
organize and align themselves. Up until that point it is not clear whether one
individual or more than one individual will form, and at this point it becomes clear
which cells will go on to form the placenta and which go on to form the embryo. The
‘primitive streak’ is evidence of the start of the nervous system at 2 weeks. At this
point it is thought that the young embryo can experience pain and has primitive
sensations. 14 days is the limit for embryo research. After this point it cannot be
used. This demonstrates that the law is recognising the change in the foetus at this
point.
A further religious answer to the question as to when ‘human life’ begins is put
forward by Augustine and Aquinas. They argue life begins with the moment the soul
is implanted by God at a certain time after conception. St Augustine maintained that
the soul was implanted at 46 days, although he qualified this by stating that the
killing of the foetus before or after this time was wrong. St Thomas Aquinas
contended that ensoulment took place in boys at 40 days, and in girls at 90 days.
Consequently an abortion carried out before these dates were not viewed as
murder, since the foetus was not in possession of a human soul.
Other Scholars believe there should be different criterion to determine when life
begins. Consciousness is often suggested as a definition of personhood.
Consciousness cannot be applied to all living tissue, as it implies sensory experiences,
the ability to feel pleasure and pain. As such many Scholars claim consciousness is
the decisive point when ‘human life’ begins.
Other ethicists argue that consciousness alone is not enough to determine that
‘human life’ has begun.’ It is the presence of rationality, and our ability to develop
complex language and make complex tools, are distinctive features of personhood.
Although perhaps self-consciousness or self-awareness defines a human person are
also necessary to say individual human life has begun. This includes a sense of our
own past and future. However, very young babies are not self-aware in this sense
and yet very few people would argue that killing a baby is not the same as killing a
person, but this does not necessarily imply that full legal status should be aware on
the basis of what it has the potential to be. Although recently an Oxford University
‘think tank’ claimed in certain extreme circumstances that terminating the life of a
recently born baby was no different to abortion, and could be justified!
The final position argues that human life begins when the foetus is viable. Viability
means when the foetus can survive a birth and exist independent of the mother. E.g.
Joseph Bradbury was born at 23 weeks and five days, and just before the legal cutoff time for an abortion
– The value of potential life – differing views
A01 Explain the different ethical and religious views regarding the value of
potential life. (30 marks)
Generally speaking the religious and ethical views regarding the value of potential
life can be divided into two positions; firstly those who believe that the potential life
does not have value, and secondly those who believe that it does. However, those
who believe that potential life does have value do not always agree on at what point
it becomes valuable. For the purpose of this essay ‘potential life’ will refer to any
point pre-birth.
Those who believe that life begins at birth do not see the inherent value of potential
life. If potentiality is taken into account and the foetus is a person, then sperm and
ovum are persons which would also be entitled to the right to life. This is due to the
fact that both sperm and egg have the potential to become fully human. Warren
argues that ‘birth, rather than some earlier point, marks the beginning of true moral
status’ Birth gives a clear boundary and clear stage in the process of coming into the
world and presents a stage of recognition by others that the baby is an individual.
Ethicists such as Glover reject this position because of the similarity between later
foetuses and premature babies. As such they would argue that clearly the foetus in
this case, as a potential human, must have inherent value.
The position of the Catholic Church would reject the idea that potential life does not
have value, and that life only begins at birth. Pope Pius declared that a foetus is a
human person from the moment of conception, and therefore that this potential life
is of equal value to that of human life. This belief is supported by Jack Scarisbrick, of
the charity Life, who points to the fact that conception is the point at which the
unique selection of genetic information is present. It is also the moment the sperm
and the egg have combined to create a fertilized ovum. The key point though is that
if ‘the unborn child ’ is allowed to continue and is successful in development will go
on to be a unique human being.
There are other scholars such as Norman Ford who although stress the importance
of potential life, believe that at this point (conception) in the development of the
unborn child, it is too early to have the same value as a child that has been born.
They argue that this point is not reached until the presence of the primitive streak on
the fourteenth day after fertilization, as the point at which a unique human being
can be said to exist, albeit in potential form. The primitive streak provides the
structure around which embryonic structures organize and align themselves. Up until
that point it is not clear whether one individual or more than one individual will
form, and at this point it becomes clear which cells will go on to form the placenta
and which go on to form the embryo. The ‘primitive streak’ is evidence of the start of
the nervous system at 2 weeks. At this point it is thought that the young embryo can
experience pain and has primitive sensations. 14 days is the limit for embryo
research. After this point it cannot be used. This demonstrates that the law is
recognising the change in the foetus at this point and the high value for potential life
at this stage.
Relgious thinkers argue that the soul is implanted by God at a certain time after
conception. St Augustine maintained that the soul was implanted at 46 days,
although he qualified this by stating that the killing of the foetus before or after this
time was wrong. St Thomas Aquinas contended that ensoulment took place in boys
at 40 days, and in girls at 90 days. Consequently an abortion carried out before
these dates was not viewed as murder, since the foetus was not in possession of a
human soul. These two positions clearly feel that there is great value in potential
life as it is the point when the soul is implanted.
Other Scholars believe there should be different criterion to determine whether
potential life is valuable. Consciousness is often suggested as a definition of
personhood. Consciousness cannot be applied to all living tissue, as it implies
sensory experiences, the ability to feel pleasure and pain. As such many Scholars
claim consciousness is the decisive point to determine when potential life becomes
valuable
Other ethicists argue that consciousness alone is not enough to determine that a
potential life has value. It is the presence of rationality, and our ability to develop
complex language and make complex tools, are distinctive features of personhood.
Although perhaps self-consciousness or self-awareness defines a human person are
also necessary to give potential life value. This includes a sense of our own past and
future. However, very young babies are not self-aware in this sense and yet very few
people would argue that killing a baby is not the same as killing a person, but this
does not necessarily imply that full legal status should be aware on the basis of what
it has the potential to be.
The final position that argues that potential human life is valuable is know as
viability. Some thinkers argue this is the point at which human personhood should
be recognised and potential life given value. Viability means when the foetus can
survive a birth and exist independent of the mother. Many babies have been born at
this time and survived independent of the mother to live a fully and happy life. E.g.
Joseph Bradbury was born at 23 weeks and five days, and just before the legal cutoff time for an abortion
To sum up; the phrase ‘potential life’ is not a helpful phrase because many
commentators would see the foetus or embryo as a life in itself, and not describe it
as a ‘potential life.’ Perhaps a better term would be ‘unborn’. As there are various
arguments both for and against the ‘unborn’ having inherent value. Changing this
term would bring more clarity to the debate.
– Mother’s versus child’s interests, double effect
Mother’s versus Child’s Interest – A Question of Rights?
Mothers rights greater than the foetus
There are a number of situations in which the issue of rights and who’s are the
greatest pose a real dilemma e.g. when an expectant mother is faced with the
decision as to whether to continue with her pregnancy at the risk of losing her own
life. In an ectopic pregnancy, when the foetus is growing in the fallopian tube, if the
foetus is not terminated it will in the vast majority of cases result in the death of
both mother and foetus. In such an instance many would agree that the mother’s
right to life should always overrule the rights of the foetus. In the case of ectopic
pregnancy a diagnosis is most commonly made at 16 to 20 weeks (even in
developing countries) and so the foetus at that stage would not be considered viable
(able to survive independently from the mother outside of the womb) in the UK and
would therefore be a further reason to overrule it’s right to life.
The Catholic Church, who are obviously strong in their opposition of abortion,
recognise that in certain circumstances foetal rights have to come second to those of
the mother if her life is at risk. In such cases they will make reference to the doctrine
of double effect – it may be that a medical procedure is necessary to protect the life
of the mother, which indirectly leads to the termination of the pregnancy e.g. it
would be permissible to perform a hysterectomy on a pregnant woman with cancer.
In carrying out the hysterectomy, the doctor would aim to save the woman's life
while recognising that the death of the foetus is a secondary effect. The aim is to
cure the mother of cancer of the uterus and the foetus dies as a result – the
intention was never to abort the foetus. It is important to note the principle of
double effect does not really permit abortion – it permits actions where the byproduct of the action may be an abortion if the action in itself is absolutely
necessary.
Judith Thomson would strongly agree with the statement and would most likely use
her analogy of the sick violinist to emphasise that the woman’s right to life and her
right of ownership of her own body are of greater significance than the right to life
which may be given to the unborn foetus. Mary Anne Warren would support this
view and maintain that abortion must be permissible to guarantee women’s human
rights of life, liberty and self- determination. The World Health Organisation (WHO)
says that unsafe abortions kill 200 000 women every year. To be forced to bear a
child is to be forced to undergo a risky process. Self-determination includes freedom
from the infliction of bodily harm. Prohibition of abortion according to Warren
infringes on these rights.
Michael Tooley claims that ‘only a person can have a serious right to life’. For him a
person is ‘an entity (exists independently) that has a conception (understanding) of
itself – i.e. self-conscious’. A foetus therefore is not a person and so does not have an
absolute right to life. Abortion therefore is morally acceptable.
Foetal rights at least equal to those of the mother.
There are those from both a religious and non-religious perspective that would be
quick to question whether the mother’s right to life should always overrule the
rights of her unborn child. Many would question whether this should be the case if
the foetus is beyond the stage of viability, for if there is a chance it can survive
independently it could be considered a person in its own right and so why should its
rights be overruled by its mothers when after all it has a full life to live. It is true that
the woman’s position should be respected but some opponents of abortion say that
no such rights can override the rights of another person to life and a foetus or an
embryo is a person.
Rosalind Hursthouse criticises concentration on women’s rights alone as she believes
that this may cover up the issue that abortion may actually be wrong. She claims
abortion may in fact be absolutely wrong and should be considered once again to be
a moral issue rather than one of rights.
Such an approach would seem extreme if in this case the life of the mother is at risk,
but those who are pro-life would no doubt seek clarification by what the statement
means by the mothers right to life. For if the statement means the mother is likely to
die if the foetus is not aborted then of course her rights should override the foetus.
However if ‘right to life’ infers anything to do with quality of life i.e. it means she has
a right to be in control of her own life plan and continuing with the pregnancy would
impact negatively on this then that is something quite different and if so her rights
should not always overrule. Some would disagree with this, Beverley Harrison in an
article ‘our right to choose’ claimed ‘the wellbeing of the woman and the value of
her life plan should always be recognised as of intrinsic value’. She argues forcefully
for the rights of the woman. She maintains that abortion cannot be discussed in
isolation from the psychological and social position of the woman. One must clarify
therefore what we mean by risk to the mothers health for imminent death; damage
to physical health; impact on psychological health and social health are very different
risks.
In response to Tooley’s argument/ definition of personhood – an infant that is one
month old is no more a person according to Tooley’s definition than a baby in the
womb at 3 months or 6 months etc. This does not give us the right to destroy or
terminate the life of the one month old child as this would be infanticide and a
criminal offence. Tooley does actually support infanticide!! In serious cases e.g.
extreme disability
Conclusions and other considerations
Certainly the woman’s rights must be recognised, but her rights cannot be
considered in isolation. It should not be taken for granted that in every situation this
will be the case and it is always important in every case to acknowledge or even
consider the rights of the foetus and perhaps even the father. Peter Vardy argues in
his book ‘The Puzzle of Ethics’ that it is wrong to concentrate on rights alone,
responsibilities must also be taken into account. A woman’s rights and life plan must
certainly be considered, but it must also be recognised that actions have
consequences.
– Ethical issues involved in legislation about
abortion
AO1 Explain the ethical issues involved in legislation about abortion. (30 marks)
The ethical issues involved in legalisation about abortion are wide ranging and
detailed, and therefore for this essay will focus on the current legislation. This will
include the ethical issues it initially sought to address, and then the issues that arise
from the law as it stands. It is impossible to cover all the ethical issues which the
current legislation raises so the following areas will be covered. Firstly the issues it
raises about a women’s right to choose, Secondly the undesirable consequences
that could arise due to the current law, thirdly the ethical concerns that MPs have
raised with the law, and finally two ways that the pro-life movement believes the
current legislation can be open to abuse.
The present Abortion Act prohibits abortion on demand. It lays down particular
grounds on which 2 doctors can agree to the termination of a pregnancy. E.g. That
the pregnancy is no more than 24 weeks. The legislation was developed to prevent
the following issues from occurring. Firstly to protect women whose pregnancies
involved a risk of injury to their physical or mental health, or to that of any existing
children in her family. Secondly, to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical
or mental health of the woman. Thirdly to protect those women whose pregnancy
involved a risk to the life of the women. Finally to protect the potential child in cases
where there was substantial risk is that they would suffer from such severe physical
or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped, and experience a poor
quality of life.
The pro choice movement raise the ethical issue of the women’s right to choose.
The claim the current legislation is unethical because it does not go far enough!
There are compelling ethical reasons for the law to permit abortion in all, or almost
all, cases, not just when there is certain risk to the mother. This feminist position
begins from the historical experience of female suppression and a patriarchal
society, and the role of religion in that history. Women were subordinated within the
family and had their freedom limited by the constraints of motherhood and the
unreliability of contraception. Women's roles have primarily been defined in terms
of motherhood and it was only towards the latter end of the 20th century that
women in large numbers began to have equal legal rights and equal opportunities in
employment. Mary Anne Warren believes women should have the right to abort
unwanted pregnancies at any time. It should become part of their right to life given
to them by the Human Rights Act.
The pro-choice movement also raises the following ethical issue of undesirable
consequences for women. As Abortion is not currently on demand, it is still possible
a woman could still be refused an abortion by one of the (approximately one in ten)
doctors who are opposed to all abortion. This could lead to dangerous illegal
‘backstreet’ abortions and even women self harming. The world health organisation
(WHO) says that unsafe abortions kill 200,000 women every year. In Romania during
a period of abortions being illegal there was an increase in birth rate but also an
increase in the mortality rate of women through backstreet abortions. Therefore, to
be forced to bear a child is to be forced to undergo a risky process that may lead to
the possibility of giving up work, education and consequent harm. Self
Determination in this context means the ability to control your own life. Most
people should have the right to control their own freedom from the infliction of
bodily harm. Warren argues that although in most cases killing is wrong, to prohibit
abortion on demand, would deny a woman her basic human rights. She would be
forced to suffer the risk of death – this is clearly wrong and highlights an issue with
the current legislation.
However it is not solely the pro-choice movement who raise ethical issues with the
current legislation. MPs have raised they key ethical questions in the House of
Commons ‘when does life begin? And what constitutes a person? The following
amendments to the law have been suggested: Firstly, to make the wording of ‘severe
abnormality’ more precise, and secondly to lower the time limit in which most
abortions are allowed. All attempts to alter the law have failed. This is despite in
2008 Catholic cabinet ministers Ruth Kelly, Des Browne and Paul Murphy all voting
that the time limit of an abortion should be changed to 12 weeks. It has been argued
that medical advances mean that it is possible for a foetus to be delivered earlier
than the current time limit and survive. Suggesting it is unethical to abort prior to
this point. They also argue that what is meant by ‘severe abnormality’ is poorly
defined. In recent years Abortions have taken place that do not appear to be a
severe abnormality e.g. 26 abortions since 2002 have taken because of a cleft palate
which can be corrected with a simple operation.
Many pro-life Scholars point out an ethical issue with the current law allowing
abortion is that it is a slippery slope towards abortion at a later point, and even the
killing of young babies. This is shown by the fact a group of medical ethicists linked
to Oxford University have argued that Parents should be allowed to have their
newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is
no different to abortion. Has this occurred because of the current laws are too
liberal?
A further issue with the legislation is that its lack of clarity leads to abuses of the
system. For example two doctors have been suspended after being filmed granting
women abortions based on the gender of their baby. An undercover investigation
found consultants apparently agreed to terminate a pregnancy based only on the
baby’s sex, with ‘no questions asked’. Several commentators have repeatedly
claimed that abortion for sex selection is illegal. But that is far from clear according
to Sally Sheldon of the guardian. She points out although she feels it is ‘immoral,’
those claiming it is illegal seem to have confused the law on abortion with the law on
embryo selection. Cleary this raises questions with the clarity of the law. Pro-life
commentators would point out the only way to remove the confusion would be to
make abortion illegal in all cases.
Arguments for and against abortion and
euthanasia with reference to religious and ethical
teachings
AO1 Summarise the arguments in against abortion with reference to both ethical
and religious teaching. (30 marks)
There are various ethical arguments in favour of abortion, but for the purpose of the
essay I will focus on the utilitarian position. Generally speaking religious teaching is
‘against abortion’. Therefore to enable me to put forward the religious position, I will
focus on Christianity and summarise its arguments against abortion.
There are various Utilitarian arguments that would be against abortion.
They hinge on the likely future pleasure of the potential child, versus the pleasure or
pain to the mother and any other individuals affected by the abortion decision. For
example, Bentham or an act utilitarian may argue against abortion in the following
circumstances. If the potential pain/guilt the mother experienced at the abortion of
the child combined with the pain the foetus may experience (which some American
physicians claim is as early as 16 weeks) outweighed the pain she would experience
at putting her own interests aside, and bringing up the child. It is likely Bentham
would be against abortion in these circumstances.
The hedonic calculus could be applied against abortion. E.g. If a 15 girl became
pregnant the calculus could argue in favour of an abortion along the following lines.
The guilt at having an abortion is immediate (remoteness), having an abortion may
reduce her choices and freedom in life as it may reduce her chances of having a
baby. (Richness), the girl having aborted a child may feel such intense guilt that she
cannot enjoy any pleasures (intensity), The lack of freedom from the pain/guilt
(Purity) at terminating a potential child is certain (Certainty). The mother and her
immediate family are most directly affected (extent). The guilt she experiences at
the abortion might last a long time perhaps for the rest of the girl's life (duration).
Mill or a Rule Utilitarian may argue against Abortion on the following grounds.
Firstly Mill would see the benefits of parenthood as a higher pleasure as it challenge
the mind as well as the body, and therefore may argue against abortion on these
grounds. Rule utilitarian’s would look for principles that generally lead to happiness,
and would follow these even if they sometimes led to choices that an act utilitarian
would reject. For example a principle/rule that brings the greatest happiness is ‘do
not kill.’ As such a rule utilitarian may argue against abortion because they consider
the foetus as a human person that can experience pain. American physicians claim
that a foetus can experience pain at 16 weeks which would support this argument.
The Christian perspective is clearly against Abortion. Firstly they believe in the
Sanctity of Life the idea that all human life is sacred. Various Biblical passages point
to this. E.g. the commandments ‘do not kill.’ . Therefore this supports the view that
humans have a right to life and that the foetus as a human, is entitled to this right. In
support of this they teach that a foetus is ensouled at conception. As such for most
Christians, the human embryo/foetus is not only a person, but one made in the
image of God, and which is precious to God. For the Roman Catholic Tradition, every
abortion is a ‘moral evil,’ because from ‘the first moment of his existence, a human
being must be recognised as having the rights of a person .’ AS Pope Pius declared
that a foetus is a ‘human person from this moment of conception.’ This belief is
supported by Jack Scarisbrick, of the charity Life, who points to the fact that
conception is the point at which the unique selection of genetic information is
present. It is also the moment the sperm and the egg have combined to create a
fertilized ovum. The key point though is that if ‘the unborn child ’is allowed to
continue and is successful in development will go on to be a unique human being.
The Church of England also puts forward its position as such ‘often compared to that
of the Roman Catholic Church… The Church of England shares this general opposition
to abortion…In the light of our conviction that the foetus has the right to live and
develop as a member of the human family, we see abortion, the termination of that
life by the act of a man, as a great moral evil.
The Methodist Conference Statement of 1976 states that abortion is always an evil,
to be avoided if at all possible by offering care to single mothers during pregnancy,
and the adoption of their children if, at full term, the mother cannot offer a home.
The arguments which support this teaching are again in line with that of the Sanctity
of Life. Although the Methodist Church accepts abortion can be a lesser of two
evils. It is described as an evil nonetheless, and therefore is against it.
AO1 Summarise the arguments in favour of abortion with reference to both ethical
and religious teaching. (30 marks)
There are various ethical arguments in favour of abortion, but for the purpose of the
essay I will focus on the utilitarian position. It is fair to say that there are religious
arguments which ‘allow abortion’ in certain circumstances. However, generally
speaking religious teaching is ‘against abortion’. Therefore to enable me to put
forward the religious position, I will define a religion as being ‘in favour’ of abortion
when they see it as the lesser of two evils. I will also include Situation Ethics as a
religious teaching with its roots in the liberal protestant tradition.
There are various Utilitarian arguments that would be in favour of abortion. They
hinge on the likely future pleasure of the potential child, versus the pleasure or pain
to the mother and any other individuals affected by the abortion decision. For
example, Bentham or an act utilitarian may see the future pleasure of a handicapped
child being affected by the disability - so the rational decision might be to abort this
foetus and replace it with a potentially happier one. In this circumstance they would
be in favour of abortion. Bentham would also consider physical disabilities a major
drawback, as they rule out many pleasures. Bentham would ask "Can they still enjoy
life? If the answer was no he would be in favour of abortion. The hedonic calculus
could be applied in favour of abortion. E.g. If a 15 girl became pregnant the calculus
could argue in favour of an abortion along the following lines. The relief of having an
abortion is immediate (remoteness), Having an abortion allows her more choices
and freedom in life (Richness), The girl without a child can enjoy a much wider range
of intense pleasures (intensity), The freedom from the pain (Purity) of an unwanted
child is certain (Certainty). The mother and her immediate family are most directly
affected (extent). The freedom she experiences at the abortion might last a long
time perhaps for the rest of the girl's life (duration).
Further reasons that a Utilitarian would argue in favour of abortion is the extent to
which the foetus can experience pain- some American physicians argue this begins
as early as 16 weeks. As they do not experience pain before this, it can be argued
that Utilitarian’s are favour of abortions up until this point. I.e. before the 16th week
of pregnancy.
David Mills Daniel in the March 2012 Dialogue points out that the Methodist Church
is in favour of abortion when it is seen as being the lesser of two evils. This includes
‘situations’ where the embryo is grievously handicapped, the pregnancy is the result
of rape, or the health of the mother, mental or physical, are at risk.’ And while
insisting that ‘the foetus is undoubtedly part of the continuum of human existence’,
it accepts that ‘it is simply not possible to identify the single moment when a new
person begins. The Methodist arguments go on to highlight the right of an embryo
to full respect increases throughout a pregnancy: suggesting that it does not
consider that the embryo has personhood and full moral status from the outset.
This implies that they can be in favour of Abortion in the early stages of pregnancy.
Other Christian argues that the Catholic doctrine of double effect is in favour of
Abortion. However this is a misunderstanding of double effect because if the original
intention is to abort then this cannot be justified under the doctrine, because it can
only be justified as a side effect of an original intention e.g. saving the mothers live
with side effect of terminating the foetus. The Catholic Church does not consider this
to be an abortion. You could perhaps take this paragraph out if you do not have
enough time.
The teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas does seem to imply that Christians can be in
favour of Abortion up until the point that the soul is implanted in the foetus. He
contended that ensoulment took place in boys at 40 days, and in girls at 90 days.
Consequently an abortion carried out before these dates were not viewed as
murder, since the foetus was not in possession of a human soul.
The Church of England can also be said to be in favour of abortion in exceptional
circumstances for compassionate reasons, and looks at each case individually. If the
mother’s life is at risk or the baby will be born severally mentally or physically
disabled or, abortion may be acceptable, as it says in the Bible, “Do unto others as
you would have them do unto you.” This shows a movement away from the teaching
of double effect towards the theory of Situation Ethics.
There are ‘situations’ when the Christian theory of Situation Ethics would be in
favour of abortion. Liberal Protestant Joseph Fletcher himself believes there are
circumstances where an abortion would be ‘the most loving act.’ E.g he recounts the
case in a mental hospital in the USA where a male patient has raped an unmarried
girl with a radical schizophrenic psychosis. Her father requests an immediate
abortion, but is refused, because the states law prohibits abortion, except on the
grounds of risk to the mothers life. Fletcher says that the Situationists, seeking to
apply the Christian commandment to ‘love your neighbour’ should be in favour of
abortion, for the sake of the patients medical and mental health, not only if it were
needed to save her life. Fletcher believes that abortion would be the most loving
act, and that the interests of the suffering girl should take precedence over those (if
any) of the unborn foetus/embryo. As by definition Situation Ethics can only be
applied to individual situations; it is not possible to say it is in favour generally of
abortion. However clearly there are ‘Situations’ where this religious approach,
would be indeed be in favour of abortion as the most loving course of action.
Does the definition of human life stop abortion
being murder?
AO2 Does the definition of human life stop abortion being murder? (15 marks)
In order to respond to the statement correctly it is important to define ‘human life’
and to explore the distinction between murder and killing. For some a foetus is not
considered to be a human at all and therefore abortion cannot be in any way
considered to be murder. Yet there are others that consider the foetus to be a
human in some sense but would still not consider its termination to be ‘murder’ and
would prefer the term ‘killing’. There are of course those who are pro-life or who
take a religious stance and claim that the foetus is a human life from the moment of
conception, it possesses rights, and therefore to destroy or terminate it at any stage
must be regarded as murder.
There is a distinction to be made between killing and murder, one which is
recognised, for example, in the ‘just war’ tradition. The word murder implies
malicious intent and whilst supporters of abortion recognise the act involves the
taking of a human life or a potential human being, it is wrong to argue that there is a
cruel, insensitive feeling towards the foetus which is to be aborted. E.g. in a teenage
pregnancy there may be many reasons for wishing to have an abortion, though it is
doubtful that malicious intent towards the foetus is one of them. We use the phrase
murder to describe the killing of human beings, rather than other sentient (def =
able to experience physical and possibly emotional feelings) life forms e.g. we do not
murder cattle! So the decision about when to grant a human life full status as a
human being is crucial to the question.
In the same way a distinction must be made between the terms ‘murder’ and ‘killing’
a distinction must also be made between the terms ‘human life’ and ‘person’. Some
will define the term human life from a religious perspective while those that take a
more medical approach to the issue prefer a scientific definition. It is widely felt that
a human being is a member of a given species – Homo sapiens whereas a person is a
being that has the capacity to do certain things. As hinted at in the introduction not
all philosophers agree on the characteristics one must possess to be considered a
person. Yet we cannot conclude whether abortion is to be regarded as murder
without a universal definition.
If we were to take the view of Peter Singer it would seem that the foetus can be
considered to be a member of the species Homo sapiens, for from the moment of
conception it has the genetic make up which makes it human. It cannot however be
considered to be a person for it is not self-conscious (aware of its own existence) and
cannot rationalise (problem solve). On the basis of potentiality it would appear that
a foetus becomes more human throughout the pregnancy and so whether abortion
is to be considered as killing depends greatly on the time at which the foetus is
aborted.
In conclusion it seems almost impossible to conclude absolutely ‘whether the
definition of human life stops abortion being murder’ for one simple reason – while
we can easily define murder and explain how it is different from the term killing
there is no universal agreement as to just how human, if at all, the foetus is at
various stages of a woman’s pregnancy. For those who are pro-choice what is clear
however is that abortion is not to be considered as murder. It would seem only those
who are pro-life or religious would disagree. So the key question is not whether
abortion is to be considered ‘murder’ it is whether it should be considered to be
killing of a human or person.
Do humans have a right to life?
AO2‘The mother’s right to life should always overrule the rights of her unborn
child’. (15 marks)
There are a number of situations in which this is a real dilemma, when an expectant
mother is faced with the decision as to whether to continue with her pregnancy at
the risk of losing her own life. In an ectopic pregnancy, when the foetus is growing in
the fallopian tube, if the foetus is not terminated it will in the vast majority of cases
result in the death of both mother and foetus. In such an instance many would agree
that the mother’s right to life should always overrule the rights of the foetus. In the
case of ectopic pregnancy a diagnosis is most commonly made at 16 to 20 weeks
(even in developing countries) and so the foetus at that stage would not be
considered viable (able to survive independently from the mother outside of the
womb) in the UK and would therefore be a further reason to overrule it’s right to
life.
The Catholic Church, who are obviously strong in their opposition of abortion,
recognise that in certain circumstances foetal rights have to come second to those of
the mother if her life is at risk. In such cases they will make reference to the doctrine
of double effect – it may be that a medical procedure is necessary to protect the life
of the mother, which indirectly leads to the termination of the pregnancy e.g. it
would be permissible to perform a hysterectomy on a pregnant woman with cancer.
In carrying out the hysterectomy, the doctor would aim to save the woman's life
while recognising that the death of the foetus is a secondary effect. The aim is to
cure the mother of cancer of the uterus and the foetus dies as a result – the
intention was never to abort the foetus. It is important to note the principle of
double effect does not really permit abortion – it permits actions where the byproduct of the action may be an abortion if the action in itself is absolutely
necessary.
Judith Thomson would strongly agree with the statement and would most likely use
her analogy of the sick violinist to emphasise that the woman’s right to life and her
right of ownership of her own body are of greater significance than the right to life
which may be given to the unborn foetus. Mary Anne Warren would support this
view and maintain that abortion must be permissible to guarantee women’s human
rights of life, liberty and self- determination. The World Health Organisation (WHO)
says that unsafe abortions kill 200 000 women every year. To be forced to bear a
child is to be forced to undergo a risky process. Self-determination includes freedom
from the infliction of bodily harm. Prohibition of abortion according to Warren
infringes on these rights.
However there are those from both a religious and non-religious perspective that
would be quick to question whether the mother’s right to life should always overrule
the rights of her unborn child. Many would question whether this should be the case
if the foetus is beyond the stage of viability, for if there is a chance it can survive
independently it could be considered a person in its own right and so why should its
rights be overruled by its mothers when after all it has a full life to live. It is true that
the woman’s position should be respected but some opponents of abortion say that
no such rights can override the rights of another person to life and a foetus or an
embryo is a person.
Rosalind Hursthouse criticises concentration on women’s rights alone as she believes
that this may cover up the issue that abortion may actually be wrong. She claims
abortion may in fact be absolutely wrong and should be considered once again to be
a moral issue rather than one of rights.
Such an approach would seem extreme if in this case the life of the mother is at risk,
but those who are pro-life would no doubt seek clarification by what the statement
means by the mothers right to life. For if the statement means the mother is likely to
die if the foetus is not aborted then of course her rights should override the foetus.
However if ‘right to life’ infers anything to do with quality of life i.e. it means she has
a right to be in control of her own life plan and continuing with the pregnancy would
impact negatively on this then that is something quite different and if so her rights
should not always overrule. Some would disagree with this, Beverley Harrison in an
article ‘our right to choose’ claimed ‘the wellbeing of the woman and the value of
her life plan should always be recognised as of intrinsic value’. She argues forcefully
for the rights of the woman. She maintains that abortion cannot be discussed in
isolation from the psychological and social position of the woman. One must clarify
therefore what we mean by risk to the mothers health for imminent death; damage
to physical health; impact on psychological health and social health are very different
risks.
Certainly the woman’s rights must be recognised, but her rights cannot be
considered in isolation. It should not be taken for granted that in every situation this
will be the case and it is always important in every case to acknowledge or even
consider the rights of the foetus and perhaps even the father. Peter Vardy argues in
his book ‘The Puzzle of Ethics’ that it is wrong to concentrate on rights alone,
responsibilities must also be taken into account. A woman’s rights and life plan must
certainly be considered, but it must also be recognised that actions have
consequences.
AO2 Making reference to Abortion and Euthanasia. Assess the view that, humans
have a right to life. (15 marks)
It is possible to answer this question from a religious perspective and a secular one.
For the purpose of this essay I will focus on the religious perspective. The Christian
position, and in particular the Roman Catholic Tradition believe that all humans have
a right to life. There are various arguments in favour of this. The Church of England
agrees with this teaching that ‘life is sacred.’
Firstly they believe in the Sanctity of Life the idea that all human life is sacred.
Various Biblical passages point to this. E.g. the commandments ‘do not kill.’ This
teaching applies firstly in regard to abortion as they believe a foetus is ensouled at
conception. Pope Pius declared that a foetus is a ‘human person from this moment.
It is therefore a person and should be given all the rights of a person-including the
right to life. Therefore this supports the view that humans have a right to life and
that the foetus as a human, is entitled to this right. In regard to Euthanasia this
shows that humans suffering from terminal illnesses, and a poor quality of life,
should not seek assisted suicide. This is because Church teaching highlights that with
the right to life comes a responsibility to maintain life no matter how poor the
quality. In summary it would seem church teaching highlights that humans have an’
absolute right to life.’
However on other occasions the Church Teaching appears to reject the idea human
having a right to life. The right to life appears to be forfeit on these occasions.
Firstly in Just War Theory the Catholic Church makes it clear, that providing clear
criteria is met, when it is necessary to take another life. Cleary this would suggest
there is not a right to life. Also the Church has never openly rejected capital
punishment, and in the past openly supported it. Clearly this does not suggest a
right to life.
There are also occasions where the preservation of one life necessities the death of
another bringing a conflict in rights, e.g. the side effect of a termination of pregnancy
in an ectopic pregnancy is justified to save the life of the mother. Also, this teaching
of double effect blurs the lines as to whether there is a right to life, particularly in
regard to Euthanasia. It can be considered acceptable to shorten someone’s life
using painkillers. This is due the intention being to reduce pain and the side effect
being the shortening of the person’s life. This does seem to be in opposition to the
idea of the right to life. Also, in regard to the Roman Catholic position on Abortion
there can only be a ‘right to life’ if the foetus is considered a person. This is hotly
disputed by many pro-choice scholars.
In conclusion there does appear to be a ‘right to life’ from a religious perspective.
However, there are extreme and complex situations where there are conflicting
rights, and the right to life is overridden by another factor, e.g. one death being
necessary to safe the life of thousands in war. On these occasions perhaps the talk
of rights becomes secondary, and a teleological approach is more appropriate as the
religious/ deontological approach is not appropriate.
Can abortion ever be good?
AO2 ‘Abortion can never be good’ To what extent do you agree with this statement?
(15 marks)
To evaluate the extent to which abortion is good it is necessary to be clear what is
meant by ‘good.’
Many deontological religious thinkers define ‘good’ as being compliant with the law
of God, and therefore a Catholic would see ‘good’ as being compliant with Roman
Catholic Church teaching. Under this definition it is difficult to see how ‘abortion can
be good.’ Simply because the teaching of the Catholic Church is extremely antiabortion. Firstly they believe in the Sanctity of Life the idea that all human life is
sacred. Various Biblical passages point to this. E.g. the commandment ‘do not kill.’
Secondly they believe a foetus is ensouled at conception. Pope Pius declared that a
foetus is a ‘human person from this moment . It is therefore a person and should be
given all the rights of a person. This belief is supported by Jack Scarisbrick, of the
charity Life, who points to the fact that conception is the point at which the unique
selection of genetic information is present. Therefore in the eyes of the Church
Abortion would be seen as the murder of an innocent life, and therefore could never
be good. This is also supported by the fact the Church teaches that the natural
purpose of sex is to create life. Anything that stops the natural purpose of sex is
wrong. Clearly then abortion is not compliant with the teaching of the Church and
therefore under this definition can never be ‘good.’
Other teleological thinkers such as Jeremy Bentham disagree with the understanding
of term good. Bentham defines ‘good’ as being the maximisation of happiness and
minimisation of pain. As such Abortion could be said to be good when the result of
an abortion brings maximum happiness and minimum pain. For example he may
see the future pleasure of a handicapped child being affected by the disability - so
the ‘good’ decision might be to abort this foetus and replace it with a potentially
happier one. In this circumstance they would be in favour of abortion. Bentham
would also consider physical disabilities a major drawback, as they rule out many
pleasures. Bentham would ask "Can they still enjoy life? If the answer to this is ‘no’
then clearly abortion would result in the most happiness and least amount of pain- it
can then be said to be ‘good.’ Although Bentham would not claim an abortion can
be ‘good’ in every occasion-using this definition he does at least establish it can be
‘good’ on some occasions.
From this it is possible to conclude that the extent to which an abortion can never be
good depends on how you define the term good. If you accept that ‘good’ is defined
as bringing the most happiness and least amount of pain. It would seem that
Abortion can be good on a number of occasions, and therefore it unfair to say it can
never be good. This definition of good seems to be the best way forward as it is the
most flexible and is able to deal with many complex scenarios which may arise.