LESSON 8: Abortion and Human Life

Name: Section: Score:

Course Cat# & Time: ___________ Teacher: Miles F. Selgas Date:

Type of Activity:
Concept Notes Laboratory Individual  Quiz Summative
Exercise/ Drill Art/Drawing Pair/Group Others, specify______________

Topics: ETHICAL ISSUES

`
Learning The students will be able to discuss the current Ethical Issues.
Targets:
Reference

Abortion and Human Life

The Beginning of Human Life

The right to life of a human being from the very moment of conception remains to be the
strongest case against abortion. While liberals argue for the rights of women and the very basis
of these rights, there is no compelling reason why people who value human life should abandon
their moral values in favor of secular reasons, which border on the moral comfort of some.

How and when does life begin? Conception happens when a male cell (spermatozoon)
fertilizes the female cell (the ovum). It then becomes a zygote. This zygote contains the full
genetic code of 23 pairs of chromosomes. Afterwards, the zygote undergoes the process of cell
division. The zygote then grows then moves through the fallopian tube and gradually implants
itself in the uterine wall.

Later, up until the end of the eighth week, the zygote will be called an embryo. During
this period of embryonic growth, the process called organogenesis occurs. This is the time when
organic systems of the human being develop, including the formation of the brain. At the end of
the eighth week until birth, while developing a recognizable fully human form, the life inside the
womb is called fetus.

What is Abortion?

Abortion refers to the “spontaneous or induced expulsion of an embryo or a fetus from

the womb of a pregnant woman.” There are two types of abortion: spontaneous and induced.
Abortion is spontaneous when the causes are natural. Normally called a miscarriage, it can be a
result of environmental factors or trauma on the part of the pregnant woman. It usually occurs
during the early part of the pregnancy. On the other hand, abortion is induced when there is an
intentional expulsion of the embryo or fetus from the womb, usually by medical means.

There are various procedures used to undergo induces abortion. One of these procedures
is called the Manual Vacuum Aspiration or MVA method. It involves either the manual
utilization of a syringe or an electric pump in suctioning the embryo out of the womb. It is a
method usually employed only up until the 12 th week of pregnancy. Another method used is
called Dilation and Curettage (DC). DC involves the dilation of the cervix and the utilization of a
suction curettage in removing the embryo from the womb.

If the abortion occurs after 12 th week of pregnancy, another method employed is the use
of prostaglandin to induce premature delivery. Abortionists inject the amniotic fluid with either a
strong saline solution or urea. The solution kills the developing entity inside the womb and
forces premature delivery. If the abortion occurs at the later stage of pregnancy, the method used
is Intra-uterine Cranial Decompression (IDX) or “partial birth abortion.” Partial birth abortion or
IDX requires the decompression of the skull of the fetus before it is evacuated from the womb.
When abortion is also done during the very late stages of a pregnancy, such will require a
surgical procedure known as hysterotomy. The surgery is similar to a caesarian section. It
requires an abdominal incision to evacuate the fetus.

The Position of the Church

The Catholic Church argues that abortion is morally wrong because “the one eliminated
is a human being at the very beginning of life.” The position of the church is that human life
begins from the very moment of conception. This means that “no period from the moment of
conception and along the path of embryonic and fetal development can be drawn to merit a moral
justification for abortion on the basis of the right to privacy or freedom of choice of the mother,
unless the life of the mother is in danger.”

One basis of the Church in saying that abortion is morally wrong is the fact that a
fertilized egg already has the full genetic code of a human being right after the moment of
conception. Thus, it can be said that it is already a human. As such, it is endowed with the
dignity of a human being. According to the Church, “some people try to justify abortion by
claiming that the result of conception, at least up to a certain number of days, cannot yet be
considered a personal human life. But in fact, from the time the ovum is fertilized, a life is
begun…” And that life is sacred. Abortion thus violates the right to life of the unborn. For the
Church, this life is simply a victim of a kind of violence. Pope John Paul II speaks of the
innocence of the unborn:

“No one more absolutely innocent could be imagined. In no way could this human being
be considered an aggressor, much less an unjust aggressor! He or she is weak, defenseless, even
to the point of lacking the minimal form of defense consisting in the poignant power of the
newborn baby’s cries and tears.”

For the Catholic Church, the unborn, even in silence, being human, deserves respect as a
person. This also means that the unborn must be protected from harm. If the unborn child does
no harm to any person, if this child is innocent and powerless, why sacrifice the life of that child?
It is morally plausible to argue, even without the basis of faith, from the point of view of our
moral intuitions, that the life inside the womb has a moral value. The value of human life is not
as such because it is what the Church stands for. The basis of such is the reality that something of
moral value is developing. It has a life. It is a sacred life brought forth by a kind of relation
between two persons. Whether or not it is a result of an acceptable or an illicit affair, such is not
the point. The moral point is that there is a sacred human life inside the womb.

Pope John Paul II summarizes the position of the Catholic faith and makes a moral
evaluation of the same:

In the case of abortion there is a widespread use of ambiguous terminology, such as

‘interruption of pregnancy,’ which tends to hide abortion’s true nature and to attenuate its
seriousness in public opinion. Perhaps this uneasiness is also symptomatic of the uneasiness of
conscience. But no word has the power to change the reality of things: procured abortion is the
deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial
phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth.

The position of the Catholic Church regarding the issue of abortion, a moral stand that
has influenced the 1987 Philippine Constitution because of the country’s deep Catholic tradition,
tells us that the unborn possesses the same dignity as any mature adult. In this sense, the unborn
has the right to life. The state, thus, protects not only the life of the mother but the life of the
unborn as well. This means that the unborn must be given all the rights and entitlements
necessary for its survival. It is a gross violation of the unborn child’s right to life to interrupt any
pregnancy and consequently, this means that the no resource of the state should be utilized in
support of abortion rights.

To say that the unborn has the same moral status with that of an adult means that killing
the unborn is not different from killing a mature person. This moral status proceeds from the idea
that the unborn is human. It is already a human being from the moment of conception being a
product of the consummate reproductive act. Thus, for Pope John Paul II and the Catholic
Church, abortion is a direct killing or murder.

The Legalization of Abortion in the United States

Now, let us discuss the landmark Roe v Wade case (1973) in the US Supreme Court,
which gave women in the US the right to an abortion. According to the US Supreme Court:

In areas other than criminal abortion, the law has been reluctant to endorse any theory
that life, as we recognize it, begins before live birth or to accord legal rights to the unborn except
in narrowly defined situations and except when rights are contingent upon the live birth.

This means that the US Supreme Court does not believe that there are plausible reasons
to say that human life begins at the moment of conception. And because no human life exists,
subsequently no right can be given to the unborn. Morally, this means that full autonomy, which
is the capacity of persons to argue for the moral good is not conferred by the US Supreme Court
on the unborn. This also means that the Court subjects the full development of the unborn to the
decision of the mother and the state.

Mary Anne Warren argues for instance, that “it is possible to show that, on the basis of
intuitions which we may expect even the opponents of abortion to share, a fetus is not a person,
and hence not the sort of entity to which it is proper to ascribe full moral rights.” On this note,
clearly for Warren, rights are conferred only to persons. To deny the right to life to an unborn
child legally means that personhood is the necessary and essential basis of one’s right to life. The
US Supreme Court decision concludes:

A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that except from criminality
only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of a mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without
recognition of the other interest involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment.

The US Supreme Court says in the ruling that any law prohibiting abortion should
consider the interests of the mother. Otherwise, the rights of the mother, i.e. right to privacy, and
other important State interests, i.e. health care are violated. Impliedly, since the subject state law
from Texas violates the Due Process Clause as deemed by the Court, the ruling meant to
manifest that the mother has the legal right to terminate the pregnancy.

Now, what the above means for us is that it assumes that the unborn fetus is an alien
entity using the body of the woman. Being an alien entity, the continuation of the pregnancy
should require the consent of the mother. Judith Thomson echoes this when she says that “for
what we have to keep in mind is that the mother and the unborn child are not like two tenants in
a small house which has, by unfortunate mistake, been rented to both: the mother owns the
house.” The point of Thomson is to demonstrate that, in defense of women’s rights, she says, “at
least some and perhaps in most cases, a woman is under no moral obligation to complete an
unwanted pregnancy.”

Consider for instance the argument comparing the unborn to some violinist.
Hypothetically, Thomson says, consider that you have given a violinist the right to use your
kidneys in order for him to live. But what if you decide to unplug him from your kidneys? No
one could have given him such a chance. But it is your kidneys and you have made your
decision. Is it unjust? Thomson says that it is not unjust because you own your kidneys. She says
that “the right to life consists to in t he right not to be killed, but rather in the right not to be
killed unjustly.” Thomson holds the same against the fetus suggesting, “you are not morally
required to spend nine months in bed sustaining the life of that violinist. . .”

The right to privacy tells us that women are autonomous subjects. Thus, it is said that
they deserve respect with regard to their decisions as mature consenting individuals. The right to
privacy includes the right to choose, i.e. on how to use one’s body. It is right flowing from a
woman’s being an absolute holder of moral value, i.e. being an autonomous subject. Thus, it is a
right, which goes on to mean that the mother has the moral power to decide as to whether or not
she would allow the fetus to depend on her. Justice Blackmun also notes that:

For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision
and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending
physician.

Based on the decision, the choice to continue or terminate the pregnancy must be
accompanied by certain conditions. Thus, the US Supreme Court decision states, “for the stage
subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the state, in promoting its interest in
the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are
reasonably related to maternal health.”
 Concerns regarding public health are thereby invoked in the decision. It clearly stipulates
that after the first trimester, the different states in the United States may regulate abortion, with
the general compelling reason of protecting and preserving maternal health. This stipulation rules
that pregnant women do not have the absolute right to procure an abortion after the first
trimester. It dictates that US States do have some form of regulatory power on abortion after the
trimester.

The decision does not mean that the US Supreme Court has acknowledged the right to
life of the unborn after the first trimester. The ruling side steps the question of the personhood of
the fetus. It is essential, but the court rules that it is not legally possible to have any plausible
argument to determine substantially if the fetus is a person. The decision on Roe v Wade simply
rules that US States have certain regulatory powers with regard to abortion after the first
trimester on the basis of state interests. Below, we shall consider the general reasons for abortion,
as explained by Fr. Romeo Intengan, SJ in Bioethics.

Therapeutic Abortion

Therapeutic abortion is done in order to save the life of the mother. One case of
therapeutic abortion is ectopic pregnancy. It is a condition where the embryo fails to implant in
the uterus and is developing inside the fallopian tube. In such condition, continuing the
pregnancy endangers the life of the mother. It is moral urgency of saving the life of the mother
that makes therapeutic abortion morally justifiable.

The argument proceeds from principle of double-effect. In the principle of double-effect,

one is to choose a lesser evil in order to achieve a greater good. The principle of double-effect
tells us that one act (in this case abortion) has two effects – one, saving the life of the mother and
second, ending the life of the embryo. The end of the non-viable embryo is not intentional but
comes as an effect of the effort to save the mother’s life by terminating t he pregnancy. The good
of saving the life of the mother is greater than the value of the non-viable embryo.

Eugenic Abortion

The field of eugenics employs the science of genetics in order to create better species. By
better, we mean that these species are more desirable because of their better physiological traits.
Following this stance, eugenic abortion terminates the pregnancy in order to avoid giving birth to
infants with physical deformities. Parents usually undergo prenatal screening to check for
abnormalities in the unborn fetus. A fetal anomaly is used as basis in deciding to terminate the
pregnancy.

Eugenic abortion relies on the idea that fetuses are not yet persons. Thus, since fetuses
are not persons, they do not have rights. Fetuses, following this argument, are said to possess no
moral status and thus, they do not have a right to a full human life. Eugenics disregards the value
and sanctity of human life. But the most compelling reason against eugenic abortion is that it
considers the unborn as a mere object without any dignity. It makes the wrong judgment that an
unborn child who may have disabilities cannot live a meaningful human life. It is something that
reduces the life of the unborn to an object of scientific manipulation and control.
 Although it can be said that the science of eugenics aims at the improvement of the
human race, it is wrong because it employs unethical means. In this regard, Don Marquis writes
that “since a fetus possesses a property, and the possession of which in adult human beings is
sufficient to make killing an adult human being wrong, abortion is wrong.” To tamper with
human life in t the womb is to grossly violate the very uniqueness of each individual being, a
uniqueness that only God confers. The end or purpose of developing a superhuman race does not
justify the use of evil means, i.e. aborting embryos.

Psychosocial Abortion

In most poor societies, many women are burdened by the mental stigma and the
economic difficulty of raising a child as a single mother. Many women also feel shame and
isolation due to their condition. The comic burden of raising a child as a single mother is due to
the fact that unwed single parents are usually jobless. Women are usually ostracized by the
society and sometimes by their families. In the absence of family support, raising a child would
be very difficult. It is for this reason that some see abortion as an option.

But abortion for psychosocial reason treats the unborn as a mere means to an end and is
therefore wrong. The unborn is reduced to an object, which is sacrificed to serve the purpose of
freeing the mother from some sort psychological or economic difficulty. What is most unfair for
the fetus here is the deliberate act of the adults to evade the responsibility of caring for the child
in the future.

In can be argued against the proponents of abortion that the right to privacy
misunderstands the relation between the mother and the unborn child. It unacceptably views the
unborn child as a stranger. The unborn child is only seen as a separate and an unwelcome entity.
Thus, the unborn child is reduced to an alien object.

Psychosocial abortion also overemphasizes the idea that women have absolute ownership
over their bodies. It therefore neglects the special relationship between the mother and the
unborn. Motherhood should be a kind of relationship based on real love and care. It should not
be about whether or not it is convenient or comfortable on the part of a woman to carry a human
life inside her womb.

Pope John Paul II expresses that while “it is true that the decision to have an abortion is
often tragic and painful for the mother, insofar as the decision to rid herself of the fruit of
conception is not made for purely selfish reasons or out of convenience, but out of a desire to
protect certain important values such as her own health or a decent standard of living for the
other members of the family” or that In many cases, “it is feared that the child to be born would
live in such conditions that it would be better if the birth did not take place,” he strongly argues
that “nevertheless, these reasons and others like them, however serious and tragic, can never
justify the deliberate killing of an innocent human being.”

Humanitarian Abortion
 Somebody who is raped and becomes pregnant can carry the mental or psychological
stigma of the crime of rape. In addition to this, the newborn child becomes a reminder of the
crime perpetuated against the mother. Under this circumstance. A very careful consideration of
the situation of the woman is necessary.

Thomson says that unborn persons whose existence “is due to rape have no right to the
use of their mothers’ bodies, that aborting them is not depriving them of anything they have a
right to and hence is not unjust killing.” Thomson points out that it is not the responsibility of a
woman to aid a person that she finds unwelcome. She likens it to helping “an ailing violinist who
is a stranger to her.”

The argument however is that the unborn is not supposed to suffer the consequences of a
crime. The unborn should not be made to pay the crime of the rapist. Aborting the fetus does not
amend nor erase the criminal and moral offense that has been committed against the mother. It is
not the fault of the unborn. Why then should the unborn child be made to suffer?

On the other hand, incest is a peculiar case because of the possibility of the mother
carrying an unborn child who may have some form of physical deformity. But the argument runs
that choosing to abort the child because of such fear can be eugenic in nature. If the incestuous
pregnancy is due to rape, then the argument against abortion due to rape counters such.

But as the category suggests, some argue for this type of reason to abort for the sake of
the mother who has suffered greatly from the crime of rape or the psychological stigma of an
incestuous pregnancy. Some may argue that for the sake of the mother, the pregnancy should be
terminated. This of course is not without opposition. The unborn child is a human being and
should not be sacrificed for the sake of a co-equal good. In this sense, the rule of thumb that a
wrong cannot be rectified by another wrong applies.

The condition of a woman who is impregnated against her will violates her dignity as a
human being. The woman in this sense also needs proper care and attention. Sometimes, it
happens that the pregnant woman is also a minor. This puts a considerable health risk. In this
sense, a careful deliberation should be done with the help of medical experts and committed
family members. It should be determined whether the life of a minor is endangered by the
pregnancy. In such a serious case, the principle of double-effect should be applied. But if there is
no apparent danger on the life of the minor, the post child-birth options should be availed of to
help the minor parent.

Basically, from a moral point of view, the argument we put forward here is that the all-
encompassing principle with regards to the issue of abortion is the respect for the dignity of the
human person and the sanctity of human life. The unborn child, just like the mother, is entitled to
an absolute moral respect. Thus, any decision pertaining to such should first and foremost
consider the fact that the unborn has an unequivocal right to a full human life.

I. GUIDE QUESTIONS

[Link] is the moral issue in abortion?

[Link] women be entitled to an abortion?

 [Link] is the position of the Church on abortion?

[Link] you find the position of the Church acceptable?

[Link] is the meaning of a woman’s right to privacy?

[Link] is the basis for therapeutic abortion?

[Link] is eugenic abortion wrong?

[Link] psycho-social abortion be morally acceptable? Why?

[Link] is humanitarian abortion?

[Link] role does human dignity play in the issue of abortion?

II. EXPLAIN THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS

1.” While liberals argue for the rights of women and the very basis of these rights,
there is no
compelling reason why people who value human life should abandon their moral
values
in favor of secular reasons which border on the moral comfort of some which
results to
the sacrifice of a precious human entity inside the womb.”

2.” It is morally possible to argue, even without the basis of faith, from the point of
view of
our moral intuitions, that the life inside the womb has a moral value.”

3.” The US Supreme Court decision tells us that women are autonomous subjects who
deserve
respect with regards to their decisions. This decision includes the right over the
use of one’s
body. The argument implies that women have a right to privacy. It is a right
flowing from
their being autonomous subject.”

III. PRACTICAL APPLICATION

ABORTION RIGHTS AND CARE

Women argue that their rights also necessitate care. It is not just about the
fulfillment of a moral obligation. Care means that we also consider the situation
of women, their disadvantaged and difficult position of having to carry to term a
pregnancy, and the many other things that motherhood requires. Motherhood also
requires maturity. Consider, for instance, the fact that women also need to find
work in order to support her family, a second job at that, the first being her
household obligations. In order to augment the income of her husband, sha has to
sacrifice a lot. This puts a lot of strain and forces a woman to live an unhappy and
less satisfying life. Thus, if she is too young to be a mother, say at the age of 17,
then it is important to give her the freedom of choice. In this view, would it be
morally acceptable for a would-be mother to produce an abortion? Why?