The topic of abortion is highly emotional, leading to poorly reasoned arguments. It is common for the questions of whether abortion is immoral and whether it constitutes murder to be conflated. The pregnancy and the resulting fetus are often described using language typically reserved for natural disasters and legal terms.
Both the embryo and cancer have been likened due to their composition of cells, but they differ in a key aspect. Cancer is typically not willingly acquired, except to some extent by smokers who knowingly take a risk rather than intentionally seeking it out. In contrast, when a woman consents to unprotected intercourse and becomes pregnant, it can be viewed as her entering into an agreement with her fetus. This agreement implies the presence of an observable, logical, and reasonably autonomous choice.
It can be deduced that if fulfilling the obligations in a contract could pose a danger to one’s life, then it can be assumed that there was no rational free will involved. In such situations, it is both just and safe to conclude that no reasonable individual would willingly sign or engage in such a contract. Judith Jarvis Thomson argued in her compelling article “A Defence of Abortion” that pregnancies resulting from forced sexual intercourse, particularly in cases of rape or when there is a threat to life, have the moral right to be terminated. This implies, from a transactional standpoint, that the contract was not entered into voluntarily or reasonably, thereby rendering it invalid.
Any actions that aim to terminate and nullify the consequences of a contract should be both legally and morally acceptable. This also applies to a contract that was entered into against one party’s clear unwillingness, despite their reasonable efforts to prevent its formation. If a mother utilizes contraceptives with the intention of avoiding pregnancy, it essentially communicates: I refuse to agree to this contract, and I am doing everything reasonably possible to avoid agreeing to it. If the contract is still signed, it goes against my explicit will. There is hardly any legal or moral uncertainty that such a contract should be invalidated.
When examining the other party involved in implicit agreements, namely the embryo, more significant issues arise. Firstly, due to its lack of consciousness, it is unable to enter into a legally binding and valid contract. The absence of consciousness also renders discussions about free will meaningless. This raises the question: if one of the “signatories” lacks this vital characteristic, can the agreement still be deemed a contract? Does it truly reflect the intentions of all parties involved? The response to these inquiries is negative.
The bond between a mother and her fetus relies on the overarching Social Contract. Society, via its institutions, serves as a protector for the embryo in the same way it does for minors, the mentally disabled, and the insane. Society rightfully intervenes when there is an unequal distribution of power in implicit or explicit agreements. It safeguards vulnerable individuals from dominant monopolies, ensures protection for the physically weak against criminals, supports small opposition groups against powerful administrations, and shields struggling radio stations from being overtaken by State machinery.
Both the unconscious and dying person have the same rights and obligations, giving them the power to intervene and represent. This means that euthanasia is prohibited unless the person gives their consent. The embryo and comatose are similar in terms of their rights. Contracts establish the rights of individuals who are morally significant, meaning they are entitled to demand respect for their rights from others.
The contract specifically delineates some of these rights while leaving others unspecified due to the presumed existence of the Social Contract. The contract assumes that there is a social contract that includes the parties involved and is universally acknowledged. Therefore, this social contract is implicitly incorporated in every contract. Consequently, an explicit contract may address a person’s entitlement to a specific property. However, it may omit any mention of that individual’s rights to life, freedom of speech, enjoyment of the lawfully obtained benefits from their property, and overall pursuit of happiness. There is little contention regarding the Mother’s moral significance and her status as a rights-holder.
All humans, including those who are born and adults above a certain age, possess rights. However, the issue arises when considering the rights of unborn fetuses. One viewpoint suggests that an embryo lacks rights until specific conditions are fulfilled, at which point it becomes a morally significant individual. The precise criteria for these conditions vary among individuals but often include rationality and leading a morally meaningful and valued life. This argument can be easily refuted by pointing out that children are irrational beings – does this imply that infanticide is acceptable? An alternative perspective argues that individuals have the right to life simply because they desire it.
The question arises regarding individuals suffering from chronic depression and their desire to die. Is it our prerogative to end their unhappy lives? The true essence of life lies not in the longing for experiences, but rather in the actual experiences themselves. Another perspective suggests that an individual has a right to life because terminating their existence would mean eradicating their encounters. Thus, how do we determine the right to life for someone enduring constant negative experiences and therefore yearning for death? Don Marquis presents a more comprehensive criterion in his 1989 essay “Why Abortion is Immoral” after considering various arguments and counter-arguments: ending a life is morally incorrect since that person possesses a future filled with value and significance akin to ours. Nevertheless, this entire debate proves superfluous.
There is no disagreement between the rights of a Mother and her fetus as there is no conflict between parties in an agreement. By signing the agreement, the Mother relinquished certain rights and restricted others. This is typical in contracts as they involve compromises and optimization rather than maximizing rights. The rights of the fetus are an integral component of the contract that the mother willingly and reasonably entered into.
These contracts, which derive from the Mother’s behavior, are validated and ratified by willingly getting pregnant or assuming the risk of pregnancy without using contraceptives. Often, contracts are the result of and witnessed by behavior rather than a signed paper. Many contracts are verbal or behavioral.
Despite being implicit, other contracts hold the same level of validity as written agreements. Both legally and morally, it is undeniable that the Mother relinquished some of her rights by signing this contract. Regardless of any potential regret, she cannot unilaterally void the contract and regain her rights. It is important to note that no contract can be nullified in this manner; the consent of both parties is necessary.
When faced with a bad contract, it is often unfortunate that there are limited options due to the rules in place. However, modern contract law offers insight into two vital inquiries relating to this matter. The initial query focuses on whether the contract can be annulled. The answer to this question is affirmative as a contract can indeed be voided and nullified. This occurs when the contract was signed under duress or involuntarily or if one party made considerable efforts to prevent signing and expressed their firm refusal.
If it would be unreasonable for one party to continue, the agreement is terminated or voided. Situations like rape, contraception failure, and life-threatening circumstances fall into this category. Some may argue that economic hardships guarantee damage to the mother’s future. Her value-filled and meaningful future is ensured, along with the negative impact the unborn fetus will have on it once born.
Selecting an indeterminate positive outcome instead of a definite negative one is ethically incorrect, since the unpredictability of the embryo’s future surpasses its assurance. Nevertheless, this differentiation primarily relates to quantity rather than quality. Although certain aspects of the mother’s life may suffer adverse consequences, society can offer support and intervention to improve her circumstances if she chooses to continue with the pregnancy.
Deciding against having a baby is fundamentally different and entails denying the unborn person their entire future life. This encompasses the opportunity for them to encounter happiness, values, and purpose. Regardless of whether the fetus is perceived as a conscious entity or merely a group of cells, regardless of their awareness or lack thereof, and regardless of whether they can acknowledge their own existence or yearn for experiences are all insignificant factors. What truly counts is that they possess the potential to live a life brimming with happiness, significance, and values comparable to that of a newborn infant.
The relationship between him and his Mother is similar to a service provision contract, in which she will provide him with the necessary goods and services for his growth. This can be compared to other human contracts, such as education. Although children may not fully understand or appreciate its significance, it is enforced upon them by us, who possess such abilities, as we aim to equip them with the essential tools for their potential progress.
The duration of human pregnancy, both in physiological and in vivo terms, goes beyond the fourth year of life. The future outcome of the pregnancy depends on its location within the uterus. Shouldn’t a mother have the right to terminate the pregnancy even after the fetus is born and it continues existing outside her womb? Even post-birth, the woman’s body remains primarily responsible for nourishing the baby, resulting in ongoing physical difficulties. Hence, why not extend a woman’s ownership and rights over her body for an extended period under various circumstances? Numerous contracts involve providing goods and services, often at personal expense to the provider. We are embarking on a business venture.
At our company, we offer a software product and also publish books. We have a passion for assisting others in realizing their potential. It is important that our assistance is given willingly and reasonably in order for the contracts we sign to be valid. However, it is unethical to obstruct someone’s ability to achieve their potential and obtain the necessary goods and services outlined in a contract. If a contract has been established, it is wrong to withhold or manipulate the provision of a service based on one’s own benefit. This behavior should be condemned and result in penalties.
According to the text, it is possible to make an immoral choice that is not illegal, but this does not mean it is morally correct. It is important to understand that not all actions resulting in death can be considered murder. While these actions may seem deceitful as they involve ending life processes and obstructing a future, murder specifically refers to intentionally terminating the life of a conscious human being who usually has free will and a desire for survival.
Abortion involves deliberately ending the life of a being that has the capacity to develop consciousness and self-reliance. From a philosophical standpoint, it is incorrect to equate potential future occurrences with events that have already occurred. Drawing parallels between destroying materials like paints and cloth and destroying a Van Gogh painting, which not only relies on these materials but also necessitates the skill and involvement of the Painter.
A human forms a cluster of cells through the power of Nature. Surely, damaging the painting materials is an offense against the Painter. Similarly, terminating the fetus is an offense against Nature. However, it cannot be denied that in both situations, no final product was destroyed.
The severity of the terminating act increases as the process of creation advances, making it less natural. Classifying an abortion as murder presents various philosophical problems that are difficult to overcome. It is widely accepted that the primary crime in aborting a pregnancy is a crime against potentialities. If this is the case, then what distinguishes philosophically between aborting a fetus and destroying a sperm and an egg? Both contain all the information and potential, making their destruction no less grave than the destruction of a fetus.
The philosophical seriousness of destroying an egg and a sperm is heightened: the formation of a fetus narrows down the range of potentials ingrained in the genetic material. The egg and sperm can be likened to the well-known wave function state vector in quantum mechanics, encompassing multitude potential states. Conversely, the fetus signifies the collapse of this wave function, representing a significantly reduced array of potentials. If terminating an embryo is deemed murder due to the elimination of potentials, what then can be said about deliberately eliminating a larger number of potentials through masturbation and contraception? The argument that identifying which sperm cell will fertilize the egg is challenging holds no weight.
Biologically, all individuals carry the same genetic content, regardless of their characteristics. Additionally, if we were able to identify a specific individual in the future and eliminate only that individual, would the counter-argument still hold? In Catholicism, contraception is considered murder according to many religious beliefs. In Judaism, masturbation is seen as a severe offense punishable by ex-communication. If abortion is indeed considered murder, how should we address moral dilemmas such as natural abortion, habits like smoking or drug addiction, and even choices like vegetarianism? Can these actions be seen as infringing upon the right to life of the embryo or as a violation of some contract? Taking this argument to the extreme, if future research demonstrates that certain music or thoughts can hinder embryonic development, should we consider censoring the mother? Should we introduce force majeure clauses in the mother-embryo pregnancy contract? Can the mother cancel this contract? Does the embryo have the right to terminate the contract?Should the inequality continue, the Mother will not have the right to terminate the embryo, and likewise, the embryo will have no right to terminate. As a rights holder, could the embryo, like the State, take legal action against his Mother or Third Parties like the doctor who performed the abortion or someone who caused a natural abortion by harming his mother, even if he has no surviving heirs except those bringing the lawsuit? Should anyone who had knowledge of an abortion be considered an accomplice to murder? If abortion is considered murder, why is the punishment so lenient? Why is there an ongoing debate on this question? The prohibition of killing, as a natural law, is present in almost every legal system.
Abortion’s lack of equal treatment speaks volumes as it is easily and immediately identifiable.
