Mike Westfall

Philosophy 190
Termpaper
why Abonion is wrong
When I was young, I was under the impression that abortion
a perfectly and convienient to fix the
unfortunate result of a personal mistake. I hadn't given much
thought to the ethics of it, and 'J'lasn 't exsposed to the
controversy surrounding it. However, after growlng older and
being exposed to others thoughts and having my own challenged,
have come to change my mind about abortion. It cannot be morally
justified in general.
There are many arguments used to justify abortion. One
popular argu..'!'.ent asserts that a .... oman has the right to control
her own body, and therefore has a right to have an abortion for
whatever reason she sees fit. This is has a couple of
flaws, though. First the assertion that a woman has a right to
control her own body at all times is clearly not the case. Most
people have no problem with laws regarding drugs, prostitution,
suicide, etc. But even if we grant a woman 's to
unconditionally control her own body, this still ln no way
justifies abortion, because it either overlooks the fact that
the fetus is a separate human entity or assumes that the fetus is
part of the woman's body.
I
Another justification for abortion lS that it helps
eliminate unwanted children. Many beleive that unwanted children
are somehow indirectly responsible for a variety of family
problems, such as child abuse, as well as social problems, such
as increased welfare burden. They believe abortion lS an
accebtable method for alleviating these problems.
Besides these two, there are many other justifications for
abortion, and nearly all of them have one thing in the
assumption that the unborn is somehow not fully human, or is not
.....
1 person. If could be shovtn that this assumption is faulty,
I
a
then most of the arguments for abortion would have to fall, for
if the unborn lS fully human, then. hO'..... could '.-le justify executing
the unborn any more than we could justify executing abused young
children? This would seem to be the ultimate child abuse, the
worst kind imaginable. If we agree that the unborn is fully
human, then it is verJ dificult to demonstrate that the value of
a human being is dependent on whether someone wants or cares for
that being. For example, no one would argue that bums on
the street should be rounded up and done away with because they
are nor the same be done to welfare recipients because
they are a burden on society. Many even believe the death penalty
should never be used at all, even for the most dangerous criminal
elements in our society, because of the inherent worth of a human
being.
The question lS not whether the unborn are wanted, or
whether they ...muld be a burden on society, or whether one can
afford to have a child or whether the pregnancy is convienient;
the question is whether the unborn is fully human.
Is the unborn fully human? This is the question we will have
to answer. Clearly, the unborn is human in the biological sense.
It is certainly not F'rog or Chicken or Catfish or Pine Tree. And
certainly the unborn is living. Furtherrnore, the unborn has a
genetic makeup that is distinctly different from its mother's,
making it a distinct being. Hence, the unborn J..S a distinct,
living human being, even if it is entirely dependent upon, and
living within the mother's body.
But is the unborn fully human? Some would argue that a baby
recieves its full personhood upon being born and taking it's
first breath. But what is so special about birth that it could
\
change a h ~ ~ a n being from a non-person into a person? There is no
qualitative difference between a baby one minute after it's born
and one minute before it's born. The only differences are
location of the baby relative to its mother's body, and the
method by which it receives its nutrition. The baby must now eat
to recieve nourishment and breathe to get its needed oxygen.
These differences locality and biological process don't
seem to be sufficient for conferring or denying personhood.
Likewise, there is no qualitative difference between a baby'
one minute before it is born and two minutes before it is born,
or three minutes before it is born. In fact, the whole process of
development from the time of conception until birth, even until
the death of the person is a continuous progression, with no one
single event occuring that could be the defining event at the
beginning of personhood. Some would say that when the heart
starts beating, or when brain-'."J'ave activity begins are distinct
events in the development of a human being, but these are mere
biological functions. .r..gain, they don't seem to be sufficient
criteria for conferring or denying personhood. Furthermore, these
two events take place very early in pregnancy, before the time
when the vast majority of abortions are performed.
argument asserts that the unborn is a person when it
reaches the stage of "viability", that lS, when it can survive
outside the womb with the expert care of doctors in a hospital or
laboratory. But this would mean that personhood is defined by the
,/' current state of medical and the skill of the doctors
involved. As the state of the medical art advances, the age of
viability gets closer to conception. It is expected that
in the future medical technology will have advanced to the state
that a human baby will be viable from the time of conception,
never needing to be in the mother I s womb at all! Personhood
cap_'1.ot be rationally based on viability; it must be independent
of technology.
What, then, is left for determining T.f1hen a entity
becomes a person? It would seem that personhood is not determined
by anything that happens in the womb, or any special event that
happens at birth. TNhy, then, should we consider the unborn to be
unworthy of the Right to Life, but ackno'.....ledge that right the
minute the baby is born? It seems arbitrary and inconsistent.
In class we discussed several thoeries of personal identity,
trying to resolve just what 18 it about us that glves us our
peronal identities. None of these addressed how a human could be
a person just after birth, but not just before birth.
Furthermore, we don't need to resolve the identity of the human
in question, for it doesn't matter who the unborn is, but whether
the unborn is or isn't a person. It would seem the only thing
left for granting a human entity personhod is it's mere
existance. And since a pre-born human being is no less existant
than a post-born h u w ~ n being, the pre-born should be considered a
person as much as anyone, even up to the time of conception.
Assuming one agrees ...lith the foregoing arguments for the
personhood of the unborn, one might still be inclined to ask,
"But how does the personhood of the unborn make abortion morally
unjustifiable?" This will depend on ones own theory of morality,
but if the unborn is a person, and if one I s moral code cannot
justify the killing of innocent people ~ n general, then one
cannot consistantly morally justify abortion in general.