In the contemporary world, the society is often separated into right and wrong, as well as good and evil. Legal and ethical issues associated with abortion are becoming controversial every day in modern society; some people support the idea of abortion, while others disagree. In a typical example, different philosophers have a personal explanation regarding how abortion should be perceived. Natural law theorists (e.g. Aristotle), positivists (e.g. Marx), and sociological thinkers (e.g. Bentham) have all provided an analysis of abortion as a debated issue and how it should be resolved. Accordingly, there is an urgent need to explore abortion as a controversial subject and create a clear understanding of what needs to be done in society. This paper will examine abortion as a contentious area and apply three different theorists to explain the jurisprudential problem and underscore how the approach of every concept offers clarity on how the issue should be analyzed.
Abortion as a Controversial Issue
Many people have different views regarding abortion; the primary problem is that some try to justify the act whereas others consider it morally wrong. Before reviewing the natural theorists, positivists, and sociological thinkers, it is important to note that abortion is considered by many researchers as a wrong act. However, some countries perceive abortion as legal but under specific conditions. On the other hand, Zuk and Zuk (2017) argued that abortion should or must not be permitted and the criminalization of the act needs to be well-governed by the rule of law. In general, many societies across the world refuse perform abortions as it is not morally right.
Natural Law, Positivism, and Sociological Theories
Natural law means what establishes right and wrong is similar to all people, and the concept is expressed as morality. A good example of natural law is that it is globally accepted that killing a person is wrong (Boyle, 2017). Additionally, punishing someone who has killed a person is right and necessary. In this case, Aristotle’s natural law where he claimed that it is morally wrong to kill a human being will be reviewed.
Positivism refers to the philosophical system which recognizes things that can only be verified scientifically and thus, rejecting theism and metaphysics. In other words, positivism thinking is derived from existing decisions and not from moral thoughts (Stijepic, 2017). An example of positivism is a Christian person who is confident that God exists. In this case, Marx is an example because he considers abortion as a personal decision and rejects metaphysical ideas that place ethical value on the fetus as a human being.
Sociological thinking is a rational ability of a person that allows them to see how personal connection fits into a wider societal setting. An example is when people focus on discouraging things such as drug misuse because it does not only affect an individual but the whole society (Apostolaki, 2016). Bentham is an example of a sociological thinker as he viewed abortion to be an act that does not only harm or pleases the mother but also causes pain to the fetus and the entire society.
All these theorists have different views on abortion and in many instances, the society is separated and consist of right and wrong, along with good and evil. Looking at the first group of theorists, positivists support that abortion can be legally permissible under some conditions. Conversely, natural law theorists are against the idea of killing the embryos, viewing it as completely inhuman. The other group, sociological thinkers, claim that it is necessary to consider the effect in society before undertaking an abortion.
Aristotle Naturalist Theory
Aristotle’s principle suggested that fetuses and embryos must not be killed since they possess all the characteristics of transforming into a complete human being at some point in life. Aristotle compared his principle with the golden rule which suggested that if it is illegal to kill an adult person because he possesses some attributes, it should also be wrong to murder a living organism that will later have the same property if given the chance to develop (Swanson, 2019). Therefore, Aristotle noticed that things never occur without having potentials; there must be an ultimate reason why everything exist. In other words, Aristotle reasoned that the perfect and full realization of occurrences is always inherent.
Aristotle asserts a complete moral status for nascent human beings, including stem cells as well as fetuses and embryos. According to Aristotle, these nascent human organisms are potential persons and have a right to life (Hendricks, 2019). Therefore, fetuses and embryos are intrinsic or potential individuals and should not be killed. Aristotle attached his thinking to the idea of humanness, particularly as humanness is manifested in the worth of personhood that they highly value.
In natural terms, the embryo is a human being from the time of conception since it is a member of people’s natural kind. According to Aristotle, an embryo is an immature stage of human beings and the only difference is that it lacks some abilities of rationality (Swanson, 2019). Further, the same is true for a young child, only that a newborn baby is already a part of society (Swanson, 2019). The membership in a kind is what makes a particular living organism to be known and only those of a specific type can be said to possess the characteristics of that form. Thus, the embryo is much a person as a young child or an adult in virtue of the truth that completely has the nature of human beings.
For Aristotle, it is useless to value a young child and forget the fetus. In any case, while young children have more abilities than embryos, they still lack nearly all of the psychological, as well as the physical capacities that people normally think are the necessary properties of a mature human being (Hendricks, 2019). A young child could not control their body or express any reasonable rationality. Therefore, it is not logical for people to be serious in considering young children to be actual human beings and exclude other creatures that possess the same abilities (fetus). In a few words, a fetus, a newborn, and mature individuals are all persons and the only difference is their stages of development; the fetus must not be terminated through abortion.
Marx Positivism Thinking
Marx holds the belief that human value and personality are imparted by the economic and external environments, not by any biological process or even inherent spiritual value. Therefore, the fetus only becomes a person when it is judged as such by someone who highly ranks regarding wisdom. Accordingly, the personhood of an embryo relies on how the mother perceived the social connection that existed among them (Block & Whitehead, 2019). On the one hand, if the mother desires to keep the unborn, then she fantasizes about it developing into a human being. On the other, if the mother does not want the pregnancy, the unborn becomes something else completely (Block & Whitehead, 2019). To Marx, it means that the fetus might be a human being for a while, but also becomes diversified and rendered pre-human when the mother starts to think differently (Block & Whitehead, 2019). However, from the above considerations, it is arguable that the opinion of the mother as a person of higher wisdom about the embryo accords or denies its humanity.
For Marx, when a mother decides to abort, it is right as she remains in a good social state. Marx noted that there is no problem killing a living organism that shows no sign of thought to assist the mother who can think (Aronowitz, 2016). Based on the notion, an embryo does not think and should not be highly valued. Marx’s idea is supported by many of the people who perceive abortion as the right thing. Marx emphasized that a person is only human when they have noticeable characteristics of personhood (Aronowitz, 2016). Thus, it is of no good when people fail to consider physical functioning as a priority. Accordingly, abortion should not only be performed on the fetus that is abnormal but also in any case when the mother does not need the baby (Aronowitz, 2016). Marx ascertained that there is no evidence that a fetus is a person, as one must possess all the characteristics that a mature individual should have to qualify.
Evidently, Marx tends to incline more on economic reasoning and not social thinking. The theorist focuses on suppressing liberal philosophy, as well as social issues that are closely tied to traditions and religious values. The model supports the right to abort for economic redistribution, positing that there is no harm when a fetus is aborted to allow the mother to maintain her economic status or class (Block & Whitehead, 2019). Additionally, the principle uses the idea that women are often opposed to their rights to choose as compared to men. Therefore, Marx considers that those against the privilege of women to abort are oppressing the females and hindering them from freedom.
Bentham Sociological Thinking
Bentham is one of the fathers of utilitarianism who ascertained that nature has placed human beings under the control of two masters, including pleasure and pain. Additionally, it is human beings who determine what to be done and what to avoid. Hence, Bentham noted that it is important to focus on the prosperity of the entire society and not just a single person (Apostolaki, 2016). The theorist meant that any action is compatible when it increases the happiness of the society and it is more important than that which induces suffering. Therefore, sociologist recognized bad and good with pain and pleasure; the best action is one that maximizes good results, while the wrong one minimizes it.
For Bentham, human beings are all controlled and influenced by pain and pleasure. Likewise, morals and law are the principles that dictate the human being’s line of action. Based on Bentham’s idea, people should work for the good of society and not just for personal interests. Concerning the idea of abortion, Bentham implied that people should not only see how unwanted pregnancy will cause harm to the mother but also the embryo to be aborted (Furedi, 2016). Bentham noted that the greater good that should be performed and the wrong thing that needs to be avoided are correlates of the number of individuals affected by the outcome (Furedi, 2016). Therefore, the rightness or wrongness of abortion relies on the consequences that include pleasure or pain for the parties performing, undergoing, and receiving an abortion.
From the above discussion, losing life is categorized as pain, and freeing from the unwanted pregnancy is a pleasure. However, the thought is not simple because every type of abortion is different and must be judged on the correct premises. For example, abortion could be the right action when the mother’s life is at risk or there are embryo deformities that would prevent the baby from proper development or being born (Furedi, 2016). In such a case, according to Bentham, abortion will stop people from extra pain if the baby harms the mother. But if there is no sign of embryo abnormalities or risk to the mother’s life, abortion should be regarded as a wrong act since it creates pain to the unborn, as well as a lack of pleasure to the infertile couple in case the baby was for adoption.
The Solution to the Controversial Issue of Abortion
It is true to criticize Marx’s idea on abortion that the right of the fetus to survive can be determined by a person of a higher wisdom. Arguably, Marx is separating abortion from the justice realm, which may pose significant moral issues around the subject. Conversely, what Bentham and Aristotle try to suggest is that some actions need baseness. As Aristotle ascertained, the embryo has the potential of developing into a person, and therefore, it is owed a particular kind of concern and care as a matter of justice. According to Bentham, it does not necessarily denote that the embryo’s interest is always a priority. There can be situations in which the embryo can be legitimately sacrificed to allow the mother to survive. Therefore, it is natural to observe the prohibition on abortion because killing, in general, is not supported.
The matter concerning women’s right as suggested by Marx should appreciate the truth that abortion is not just. Aristotle noted that it is an important part of the purpose of the state to offer moral directions to citizens through the laws. The rule of law ought to assist people to advance in virtue and that is what makes the laws just. For that reason, there is no good basis for laws that permit harm or promote vice. If, as Bentham suggested, abortion for pleasure reasons is evil, then people should expect a well-organized policy within a state to outlaw it (Stijepic, 2017). In many instances, people enjoy the act of sex but are not in need of a baby. Such women form the category that supports abortion for pleasure purpose and could support abortion if the rule of law is ignored. Hence, policymakers should formulate and strengthen the rule of law to control the practices of abortion. At the same time, people should set their minds on the idea that abortion should not be conducted for pleasure purposes, but for health reasons aimed at saving the mother.
It is understood that women have fought to attain many of the rights they have at the present. Arguably, depriving women of the right to abort might be viewed as hindering females from their freedom. It is also true to remark that a female has a right to her body and should control it the way she wants. Additionally, no one could deny that the fetus is part of the woman’s body in the reasoning that it comes from her. However, the fetus could have a life as well as exist as a different entity from its mother (Zuk & Zuk, 2017). Therefore, it can be said that a woman has a right over her body but the fetus also has a right to live. Making people understand such arguments will also help in solving the controversial issue of abortion.
In the contemporary world, many people embrace Marx’s thinking and view abortion as a woman’s decision. A woman intending to abort might not give more consideration to how the wider social settings judge the status of abortion. Ideally, since abortion involves an actual evil, it is not supposed to be a private or personal choice of women. It needs to involve a wider social concern regarding the regulation of things such as family life, contraception, and structure like China’s one-child rule (Apostolaki, 2016). It is important to create awareness among people that eliminating a life is not an individual decision but rather, a societal issue.
In natural law and sociological sense, the human embryo meets the merit of personhood from the moment of conception. Apostolaki (2016) noted that people should not consider biological processes such as reasoning to categorize fetuses as non-person. Biological traits are present in all living things, even if they have no nature of personhood. According to the defenders of abortion, a human being requires, in addition to the biological process of growth and development, to be granted moral value (Boyle, 2017). It is true to say that the human embryo is special because it will still undergo biological processes to become what the defenders of abortion expect from a fetus. Essentially, every stage of human development should be granted the same moral considerations.
Conclusion
From the above considerations, abortion qualifies as the killing of an innocent human being, and must not be condoned. Certainly, there are situations when the killing of the embryo is justified in the defense of other innocent human beings. However, the act should never be legalized for mass practice based on individual decision and derivation of pleasure. Bentham suggested that people should always avoid things that cause harm to an individual and society. Abortion should only be done in cases where the fetus is abnormal or when there is a predicted health risk on the mother. On the same note, Aristotle has observed that the natural law forbids the killing of a human being. The research has shown that a fetus is a member of a human being and should be given a chance to grow to maturity. Even though a fetus does not possess some of the characteristics of a human being such as reasoning, it will grow and have the properties later in life. For the aforementioned reasons, Marx’s notion of a right to abortion due to the reason that women have a privilege to decide whether to terminate the pregnancy or not should be rejected completely. Countries need to formulate and enforce the rules of law that control the acts of abortion among their citizens.
References
Apostolaki, E. (2016). Under what conditions, if any, should be abortion legally permissible? (Graduate’s thesis, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa). Web.
Aronowitz, S. (2016). The crisis in historical materialism: Class, politics and culture in Marxist theory. New York, NY: Springer.
Block, W. E., & Whitehead, R. (2019). Resolving the abortion controversy. In Philosophy of law (pp. 443–495). London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Boyle, J. (2017). Natural law and the ethics of traditions. In J. Inglis (Ed.), Thomas Aquinas (pp. 157–184). London, England: Routledge.
Furedi, A. (2016). The moral case for abortion. New York, NY: Springer.
Hendricks, P. (2019). Even if the fetus is not a person, abortion is immoral: The impairment argument. Bioethics, 33(2), 245–253.
Stijepic, D. (2017). Positivistic models of long-run labor allocation dynamic. Journal of Economic Structures, 6(19), 1-30.
Swanson, J. A. (2019). The public and the private in Aristotle’s political philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Zuk, P., & Zuk, P. (2017). Women’s health as an ideological and political issue: Restricting the right to abortion, access to in vitro fertilization procedures, and prenatal testing in Poland. Health Care for Women International, 38(7), 689–704.