Abortion

The debate on abortion is one of those which can define your political views today. Not only
that, it also is so multi-faceted that it allows us to see a person’s views on bodily autonomy
of women, when they think life began, what defines life, what are the limits of government
intervention, and more.

There are two ways to look at this debate. First, philosophically.

At its philosophical heart, the abortion debate is about what constitutes a being with moral
rights and the right to life.
First to define two important terms, when we refer to a human being, we are talking about a
biologically human organism. When we talk about a person, we refer to a something that is
in a category of morally important beings that have the right to life. Persons who are not
human beings exist, like God, or aliens. So in regard to this, the big question is, when does
morally meaningful human life, or personhood, begin?
Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human
oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is not
when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being
begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess
human life, but they are not human beingsthey are only parts of a human being. If a
single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a womans uterus, they would not
grow; they would simply disintegrate.
The key benchmarks that people generally refer to when they answer this question are one
of these four stages: Conception, Implantation, Viability or Birth. Conception is basically the
joining of the sperm and egg, the moment of fertilization, and can take place anywhere from
3 minutes to 5 days after sex. Implantation is when the cell attaches to the uterine wall and
happens are 10-15 days after sex. Over here it’s important to note that not every fertilized
egg successfully implants, and many pregnancies end in very early miscarriages before a
person even realizes they are pregnant. Viability, in this context, refers to the stage at which
a fetus has developed to the point where it has a reasonable chance of surviving outside the
womb with medical assistance. This is typically 24 to 28 weeks into the pregnancy. And lastly
birth is of course classified as the moment the fetus exits the mother’s womb and enters the
outside world.
Lets take a look at the first benchmark, birth. (rest So how this normally goes is that
someone would suggest a threshold (using one of the ones mentioned above) and then the
objections would start coming in, because you’re basically classifying who’s in and who’s out.
People start using reductio ad absurd arguments – which is basically when you assume the
statement in question to be true and then you follow its logical implications until you reach a
conclusion that is clearly absurd. So, in this case people use this to demonstrate how a
threshold has implications they can’t accept and hence the threshold is false, or not true.
not needed)
For example,So suppose a person choose chose birth to be the point at which
personhood starts, then the argument against that is what is it about the passage down the
vaginal canal, in or out, one side or the other, that makes all the difference. People ask how
full-time fetuses are any different from a neonate - there is nothing morally transformative
about birth.
 If we were to take viability, the issue people have is that it’s like a moving goalpost,
there’s no fixed standard. Like late-stage fetuses in countries with limited access to advanced
neonatal care may have lower chances of survival compared to babies of the same age in
regions with better medical facilities. To make this clearer, one can ask the question that
what if someone invented an incubator in which you could put a blastula (which gets formed
a bit after fertilization), and it would be supported until it was ready to become a baby –
then do blastulas classify as people? As demonstrated above, the human embryonic
organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a
"blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the
mothers and the fathers chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the
mothers tissues". Quoting Carlson:
"... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a
genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the
viability of any species."15 (Emphasis added.)
Myth 3: "The immediate product of fertilization is just a potential or a possible
human beingnot a real existing human being."
Fact 3: As demonstrated above, scientifically there is absolutely no question
whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human
being. A human zygote is a human being. It is not a "potential" or a "possible" human
being. Its an actual human beingwith the potential to grow bigger and develop its
capacities.

The child that is born is the same developing human individual that was in the
mother’s womb. Birth alone cannot confer natural personhood or human individuality.
This is confirmed by preterm deliveries of babies who are as truly human and almost
as viable as those whose gestation goes to full term. All the known evidence support
the human foetus being a true ontological human individual and consequently a
human person in fact if not in law. A human being cannot begin before the appropriate
brain structures are developed that are capable of sustaining awareness. The same
applies to a grossly malformed foetus. It would still be a human individual even if its
human nature was not perfect nor its functions quite normal. Nobody questions the
humanity of a Down’s syndrome foetus or child. A foetus or child with severe open
spina bifida is none the less a human being. The same should be said for the live an
encephalic foetus or infant with only brain stem functions. It is a human individual
even if it lacks a complete brain and usually survives birth by only a few hours or a
day. Human society created several standards in defining “person”, “human being”
based on what is familiar and easy recognizable. For example: a human speaks,
understands, and laughs. Absence of these characteristics (mutism, autism, and
stoicism) does not disqualify.
After that the next benchmark people normally move to is conception.
View that human life begins when sperm and eggs fuse to give rise to a single cell
human zygote whose genetic individuality and uniqueness remain unchanged during
normal development is widely supported. Because the zygote has the capacity to
become an adult human individual, it is thought it must be one already. The same
zygote organizes itself into an embryo, a foetus, a child and an adult. By this account,
the zygote is an actual human individual and not simple a potential one in much the
same way as an infant is on actual human person with potential to develop to maturity
and not just a potential person.

It is also argued, or at least implied, that 50 many human embryos die before or after
implantation that is would be lacking in realism to accept that the human individual
begins before implantation.
The most basic argument they make supporting this is that with this threshold we include
everyone in the category, so it is the most correct. There are many issues with that
argument. If we equate conception to personhood and take that as true, then the death of a
single zygote should be every bit as bad and should be mourned as much as the death of a
ten-year old child. Another thing is that this would classify natural miscarriages as the
greatest tragedy for humanity – far worse than disease, famine, natural calamities, etc. just
because of the sheer number of deaths that come out of it. So then should the government
be putting all of us taxpayers’ money away from the aforementioned issues and into
miscarriage prevention research? Above all this though really the most simple though
experiment normally negates this argument – It goes, imagine if you were in a burning
building, and you could either rescue a canister of 5 embryos or one 2 month old
infant. Would you save the canister? Furthermore, another issue with this would be
that people who argue this essentially argue that possessing a complete set of human
DNA is the sole requirement for being considered a person with full moral rights. The
criticism often levelled against this perspective is that it is speciesist, implying an
arbitrary preference for our own species over a morally justifiable criterion. However,
when proponents of this viewpoint attempt to justify their preference by citing the
extraordinary cognitive abilities or complex emotional and rational capacities of
humans, a notable problem arises: not all humans possess these characteristics, and
certainly, zygotes, embryos, and foetuses do not exhibit such traits.
Other than all of this people also look at psychological criteria, like consciousness,
self-awareness, rationality etc. (these factors are generally favored by pro-choice
arguments).

The arguments that oppose the proposed criteria for personhood raise concerns about
individuals who may not neatly fit into these categories. For instance, it might seem
morally problematic to classify certain individuals as non-persons, such as those with
severe cognitive impairments, very young infants who lack developed reasoning
abilities, or individuals in comas or vegetative states. These objections point to a
fundamental question: Can these criteria for personhood be considered accurate or just
if they result in the exclusion of numerous categories of people?

In all of these arguments, regardless of what you choose, there will always be the
overlying issue of thresholds, or the ‘cut-off’ points. Because there is obviously going
to be an issue with considering personhood to be a sharp non-arbitrary distinguishable
borderline – that it just comes about suddenly. How does the chosen moment to define
personhood significantly differ from its closest neighboring points, and what justifies
that distinction? For instance, when precisely during birth should we consider
personhood to begin? Is it when the baby's first body part emerges, when it's
completely out of the birth canal, or perhaps a few extra inches beyond? There doesn't
seem to be any morally distinguishing factor between these small increments.

Let's take another example where someone suggests the threshold for personhood is
25 weeks into gestation, citing neurologists' claims that this is when brain synapses
and consciousness-related developments begin. But why not 24 weeks and 6 days?
What changes in that one-hour gap, or even within minutes and seconds? This
arbitrariness concern is what proponents of personhood starting at conception point to.
They argue that any cutoff point after conception is equally arbitrary because nothing
significantly distinguishes one moment from another.

However, it's important to note that conception itself doesn't escape this arbitrariness.
Conception is not a precise, decisive moment; it's a process that spans about 24 hours,
composed of countless smaller, divisible moments. Should we define personhood
when sperm first meets the egg's membrane, when penetration begins, or when fusion
occurs? The exact millisecond remains unclear.

Analogously, likening this uncertainty to the minimum driving age, where some might
question why it's set at 18 and not the day before, or at 17 or 16, does not necessarily
justify letting babies drive. The assumption in this entire discussion is that personhood
has a sharp, non-arbitrary, distinguishable borderline and comes about suddenly,
which may not necessarily be the case. It's a complex issue that doesn't have a clear-
cut answer.

The second way to look at this debate, is practically.

The question here is should abortion be legally permissible regardless of whether it’s
morally permissible or not.

⁃ Some people say that even if it is homicide, it should still be justified, like
killing in self-defence or absolute necessity killing where it’s the lesser of the two
evils
⁃ Another argument here is the practicality one, that even if abortion is immoral,
it does far more harm than good when you prohibit it because backstreet abortions etc
will still happen, people are still login got get abortions
⁃ Some people think there are places where law and morality shod be separate -
that even if abortion is immoral there are some cases of like private immorality that
the law shouldn’t get involved in - like adultery, or lying - law should stay out of it
⁃ The other argument is that abortion isn’t really like killing at all, its like
refusing to life-saving bodily aid , which is something you’re not necessarily morally
required to donate - like I can’t be morally required to donate my kidney to someone,
even to someone who needs my kidney and can only have my kidney to live - that the
argument by analogy that a woman isn’t required to go through all the bodily
difficulties (and the health risks which are certainly not negligible) just to keep
another person alive - so on these lines abortion isn’t really like killing its just really
refusing to be a Good Samaritan and being like no I cannot save your life right now, it
costs me too much and that’s a legitimate reason (making abortion morally
permissible even if the foetus is a person)

Abortion 4
Criminalising abortion does not stop abortions, it just makes abortion less safe
Preventing women and girls from accessing an abortion does not mean they stop
needing one. That’s why attempts to ban or restrict abortions do nothing to reduce the
number of abortions, it only forces people to seek out unsafe abortions.
Unsafe abortions are defined by the World Health Organisation (WHO) as “a
procedure for terminating an unintended pregnancy carried out either by persons
lacking the necessary skills or in an environment that does not conform to minimal
medical standards, or both.”

The pre-Roe arguments in favor of choice have changed. Then, the movement to
legalize abortion rested on the following: 1) illegal abortions were killing and
maiming women; 2) women should have a backup to ineffective contraception; 3) the
number of unwanted pregnancies should be reduced; only wanted children should be
born, as a matter of child welfare; 4) women should have the right to make the
abortion decision; 5) everything possible should be done to change the economic and
domestic circumstances forcing women into unwanted pregnancies.

Ongoing tension rests with the conflict between the moral and legal issues. Is it
possible to combine legal freedom and seriousness about the moral questions

A reader of The Atlantic, who gave only the initial K., clarified the moral dilemma: “I
wish that I could be pro-choice because the awful circumstances so many women face
—that I can’t even imagine facing—seem so much more real to me than the rights of a
fetus who doesn’t even always look human. But abortion is the intentional killing of a
human being and we look back with horror at anyone in history who decided a group
of people did not actually count as people. We cannot solve the problem of injustice
against women with more injustice. We need solutions that support women without
killing fetuses.”

Abortion bans endanger healthcare for those not seeking

abortions.
Medical treatment for nonviable pregnancies is often exactly the same as an abortion.
[241] [242] [243]
Ectopic pregnancies occur when a fertilized egg implants somewhere other than the
uterine cavity. About one in 50 pregnancies are ectopic, and they are nonviable.
Bleeding from ectopic pregnancies caused 10% of all pregnancy-related deaths, and
ectopic pregnancies were the leading cause of maternal death in the first trimester.
[241] [244] [245] [246]
Other pregnancies can be nonviable, including when there is little or no chance of the
baby’s survival once it is born or if the baby has died in utero. The treatment for
ectopic and other nonviable pregnancies is often the same as that for an abortion.
[243] [247]
One out of every ten pregnancies ends in miscarriage. The drugs used for medication
abortions are the only treatment recommended for early miscarriages. For later or
complicated miscarriages, the same surgical procedure used for abortions is
recommended. [242]
While some abortion bans include specific exceptions for nonviable pregnancies and
miscarriages, other bans are too vague to be practicable. Healthcare providers may
refuse to perform a procedure that could be interpreted as an “on-demand” abortion
for fear of liability or prosecution. [248]
Arguing that doctors and others use them as loopholes for “on demand” abortions,
lobbyists are working to eliminate exceptions altogether, which would further
endanger and traumatize people seeking care for dangerous medical conditions. [246]
[248]
Some pharmacists have refused to fill prescriptions for miscarriages and ectopic
pregnancies, because the drugs can also be used for abortion. In Texas, pharmacists
can be sued for “aiding and abetting” an abortion. [242] [245]
Further, bans are a slippery slope to contraceptive and other healthcare restrictions.
For example, some already wrongly view Plan B (the morning after pill) as an
abortifacient and are thinking of including it in abortion bans. [249]’’’

Legal abortion promotes a culture in which life is disposable.

As King notes, some fetuses are treated as less than human. This ideology combined
with legal abortion could create a slippery slope to designer babies, gender selection,
termination of disabled but healthy fetuses, and other trait-selection-based abortions.
The slippery slope can then extend to the mentally disabled and elderly in general.

[262]

Pro 3
Abortion bans deny bodily autonomy, creating wide-ranging
repercussions.
US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen stated, “eliminating the rights of women to make
decisions about when and whether to have children would have very damaging effects
on the economy and would set women back decades…. In many cases, abortions are
of teenage women, particularly low-income and often Black, who aren’t in a position
to be able to care for children, have unexpected pregnancies, and it deprives them of
the ability often to continue their education to later participate in the workforce.”
[250]
After being denied an abortion, household poverty increased and lasted four or more
years, resulting in an inability to cover basic expenses including food, housing and
transportation. A denied abortion was associated with a lowered credit score,
increased debt, and an increase in negative public records including evictions and
bankruptcies. The households were also more reliant on government assistance.
Transgender and nonbinary people denied abortions may face even worse outcomes.
[251] [252] [253]
And the consequences can be much more dire. “If a woman of childbearing age dies,
it has enormous economic consequences…. It’s someone who society has invested in
and who has many productive economic years ahead of them,” according to David
Slusky, Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Kansas. Often, death
also removes a wage-earner and caregiver from the household
60% of women seeking abortions already had other children. Being denied an abortion
worsened the well-being of their older children, including not meeting childhood
development markers. [
Women denied an abortion were more likely to have serious health complications,
have poor physical and mental health for years afterward, and stay with abusive
partners. Women denied abortion were more likely to be raising their children alone
five years later.
The Turnaway Study concluded, “Abortion does not harm women,” and “Women who
receive a wanted abortion are more financially stable, set more ambitious goals, raise
children under more stable conditions, and are more likely to have a wanted child
later.” \

Misc

ome take the view that the embryo/foetus possesses independent moral status from the
moment of conception or implantation. Others believe that the embryo/foetus acquires
independent moral status in degrees, thus resulting in “graded” moral status. Still
others hold, at least implicitly, that the embryo/foetus never has independent moral
status 50 long as it is in utero. (14) Being a patient does not require that one possesses
independent moral status. (15) Being a patient means that one can benefit from the
application of the clinical skills of the physician. (16) Put more precisely, a human
being without independent moral status is properly regarded as a patient when the
following conditions are met: that a human being is presented to the physician for the
purpose of applying clinical interventions that are reliably expected to be efficacious,
in that they are reliably expected to result in a greater balance of goods over harms in
the future of the human being in question. In other words, an individual is considered
a patient when a physician has beneficence-based ethical obligations to that
individual.
To clarify the concept the embryo/foetus as the patient, beneficence- based obligation
is necessary to be provided. Beneficence- based obligations to the foetus and embryo
exist when the foetus can later achieve independent omral status. This leads to
conclusion that ethical significance of unborn child is in direct link with the child to
be born -the child it can become.
⁃ The argument suggests that embryos and fetuses may be
considered patients when there are beneficence-based ethical obligations towards
them. This introduces the ethical question of whether there is a moral obligation to
prioritize the well-being of the fetus in decisions about abortion.
⁃ Link to Future Potential: The argument concludes that the
ethical significance of an unborn child is tied to the child they can potentially become
in the future. In the context of abortion, this links the moral status of the fetus to its
future potential, which is a key point of contention in debates about when, if at all,
abortion should be considered ethically acceptable.
⁃ Different Views on Embryo/Fetus Moral Status: The argument
starts by acknowledging that there are various opinions regarding the moral status of
embryos and fetuses. Some people believe that these entities have independent moral
status right from the moment of conception or implantation, while others think that
their moral status develops gradually in degrees. There's also a third group that
believes embryos and fetuses never have independent moral status as long as they are
inside the uterus.
⁃ Definition of Being a Patient: The argument defines what it
means to be a "patient." It states that being a patient doesn't necessarily require
possessing independent moral status. Instead, it implies that a patient is someone who
can benefit from the clinical skills of a physician. In other words, a patient is someone
for whom medical interventions are expected to result in a greater balance of benefits
over harms in their future.
⁃ Conditions for Being a Patient: To be more precise about when
an individual is considered a patient, the argument lays out conditions: An individual
is regarded as a patient when a physician is presented with the opportunity to apply
clinical interventions that are expected to be effective and result in a better future
outcome for that individual. In essence, someone becomes a patient when a physician
has ethical obligations based on beneficence (the principle of doing good) towards that
individual.
⁃ Embryo/Fetus as Patients: The argument then addresses the
concept of embryos and fetuses as patients. It suggests that for them to be considered
patients, there must be beneficence-based obligations towards them. In other words,
medical interventions should be aimed at promoting their well-being
⁃ Link Between Embryo/Fetus and Independent Moral Status: Finally, the
argument concludes that the ethical significance of an unborn child is connected to the
child it can potentially become in the future. This suggests that the moral status of an
embryo or fetus, and hence their status as a patient, is determined by their potential for
achieving independent moral status.

Need to do religion