Abortion has always been a very popular and controversial topic. Society has still not completely decided if it is morally right or wrong to abort. There have been many strong and compelling arguments from both the pro-life, against abortion, perspective and the pro-choice, in favor of abortion, perspective. Some of the most famous, or most known, arguments for pro-life are that abortion is essentially killing a human being and that the fetus that is inside of the mother has the right to life. Furthermore, some popular pro-choice arguments include the classic, “a fetus is not a person” and “your body your choice.” As anybody can see, most abortion arguments from both sides are formed mostly around one key question. Is a fetus a person? Even if it is or is not a person, the arguments do not stop there. There are many arguments in this debate, but this essay will focus on the ones made by Judith Jarvis Thomson, author of “A Defense of Abortion”, and John T. Noonan Jr., author of “An Almost Absolute Value in History.”
In her article, “A Defense of Abortion”, Judith Jarvis Thomson talks about abortion from a pro-choice point of view.
In his article, “An Almost Absolute Value in History”, John T. Noonan Jr. shares many reasons why he believes that abortion is morally wrong. He writes his article from the pro-life perspective. Noonan’s main arguments rely on the premise that before a sperm fertilizes an egg, there is a low probability that same sperm and egg become an embryo. In other words, the chances of becoming a human embryo are very low until the egg and sperm meet. Furthermore, Noonan calls the moment egg and sperm meet, objective continuity. This is where the chances of producing life increase dramatically from 1 out 200,000,000 to 4 out of 5. This is why Noonan says that personhood begins at conception. The probability of actually becoming a person is too high to disregard. So essentially, if a fetus that is most likely going to become a human is killed, then it is technically considered unjustified murder, and that is morally wrong. Moreover, Noonan does not there. He continuously invalidates some pro-choice arguments with his own. One that easily comes to mind is how he invalidates the thought that a fetus is not a person because it is not viable, or able to function by itself, it is not a person. Since it depends too much on the mother to survive, it is not a person because any person can function on their own. Noonan discredits this by saying that “dependence is not ended by viability.” Any child depends on their mother the same way a fetus depends on its mother. Any child or fetus depends on their mother for survival, so killing a fetus would be like killing any child.
Noonan continues his article by providing a counter to the pro-choice argument that a fetus is not a person because it cannot respond to the environment and because it has no memory. Noonan replies by saying that a fetus inside the mother’s womb is responsive to touch 8 weeks after conception. So that right there proves that a fetus does respond to its environment, according to Noonan. As for the part that says that a fetus is not a person because it has no memory, Noonan brings up the fact that even adults have no memory, sometimes. He refers to extreme cases of aphasia, which is basically losing the ability to communicate. In this counterargument, Noonan says that people that suffer from this condition are still considered people, so a fetus should have no exceptions.
Another argument that is provided in this article is the humanity argument. Noonan uses this to justify a fetus’ right to life. All human beings have the right to live, so he tries to prove that a fetus is a person by saying that DNA is what makes people human, or a person. Noonan says that a being officially becomes human once it has a full set of DNA. Since a fetus has a full set of DNA upon conception, one half from the dad and another half from the mom, then it should be considered a person, and that grants it the right to life.
My moral framework is a mix of three moral theories. Utilitarianism, deontology, and ethical egoism. My moral framework adjusts to whatever situation I am facing. Sometimes I do whatever I want because I know what is best for me, that is ethical egoism. An example would be my daily life choices in general. I always do things because I am the only one that really knows what is best for me. Some people might say that I should definitely get a job just to earn some extra cash, but I know that that is not the best option for me right now. Right now I have to focus on my studies and getting a job would heavily interfere with my study time and my grades will not be as good. Deontology plays a part in my moral framework because other times I do things with my best intentions because I think that it is the right thing to do. An example would be when I basically peer-pressure some of my friends to study for an exam. Sometimes they get annoyed, but I keep on pestering them because I want to help them pass the exam and class. Lastly, I do not like to hurt others for any reason or cause them any harm. I also make decisions that benefit me in the long run, meaning that sometimes I sacrifice some things in the present for the sake of my future. For example, I would rather be broke right now with no job so I can get really good grades and later on have a profitable career. It is for the greater good. So overall, one sentence summary of my moral framework would be that my actions are selfish but they do not cause harm to others and are done with good intentions. So I might be selfish, but I never do things that are messed up. I like to define myself as a selfish but decent human being, based on my moral framework.
My view on this matter is that abortion is sometimes wrong and sometimes permissible. I think that abortion should be allowed if a woman did not give her consent to having the baby. If the woman did not want to have the baby at all then she should be allowed to abort. Abortion should not be allowed if the woman, which would be the mother, decided to not have the baby without an unjust reason. For example, if a woman has a planned pregnancy but after 3 months she decides to call it quits by aborting, then that is when I believe that it should be considered morally wrong. In my opinion, there has to be a justifiable reason to abort. A counter argument that could be made against me would be one from an extreme pro-life perspective. Someone would probably just tell me that abortion is always morally wrong and should never be allowed, end of discussion. That abortion makes you a murder no matter what the circumstances are. I would reply by saying that abortion should be allowed because there is a possibility that the child born will not even be loved. Sure, you are giving him or her the right to life, but you are denying them the right to happiness. You are allowing them to live a life full of hate and sorrow. Even if you put them up for adoption, that still does not guarantee that they will get parents that treat them with love and respect.
