When considering the ethical applications of abortions, one should consider the moral status of a fetus. Moral status refers to the degree of value and rights of each individual and the corresponding moral and ethical treatment (Stahl & Kilner, 2019). Several ideas of moral status exist that ascribe value based on a defined set of attributes. The essentialist view, or the theory based on human properties, regards humans as having intrinsic rather than extrinsic worth (White, n.d.). Humans have value not because of some arbitrary achievements or physical characteristics but purely out of existence itself. This theory is compatible with Christian beliefs regarding human values. The Christians view the human person as a creation in God’s image (Stahl & Kilner, 2019). That is not to say that people resemble God’s physical appearance by any means, but rather have the spiritual nature and the capacity to act according to Christian ideals (White, n.d.). As such, each human possesses inherent worth, regardless of one’s abilities, gender, race, or other physical attributes. In Christian ideology, all humans should be treated equally and with dignity.
Concerning healthcare, this value system suggests that disabled patients or those with diminished quality of life are not worth any less than fully functioning human beings. Similarly, Christians regard fetuses as separate entities distinct from the mother and possessing inherent worth (White, n.d.). Since fetuses can feel pain and are seen as human beings, Christians consider abortion akin to killing (White, n.d.). Many argue against abortion, even in situations where a fetus is likely to have congenital disabilities or where the mother’s health is at risk (White, n.d.). Given the complicated nuances of most abortion cases, the topic has raised an extensive ethical debate.
The present case study demonstrates the intricate nature of the fetus’s moral status. When deciding whether to undergo an abortion, several worldviews come into conflict. The essentialist theory is illustrated most prominently through Aunt Maria, who urges Jessica not to undergo abortion as it is what “God intends.” Her Christian beliefs instruct her to treat all human life equally, regardless of possible congenital disabilities. Maria additionally represents the traditional Christian family values as she reminds Jessica of her responsibility as a mother. Similarly, Jessica displays an essentialist worldview through her conviction that “all life is sacred.” However, she is torn between her spiritual beliefs and the worry of the increased socioeconomic burden. Marco shares Jessica’s financial concerns and perceives a disabled child as a “burden.” Consequently, he rejects the fetus’s moral status based on human properties, as they view a child with a possibility of Down syndrome or the absence of limbs as having lesser value than a healthy one. Marco adopts a functional view of human value where the person’s abilities are determinants of his or her worth.
As a medical practitioner, Dr. Wilson is entitled to inform Jessica about the possibility of abortion. As he cites the child’s diminished quality of life, it is likely he does not adhere to the essentialist or Christian views that all life is sacred. Like Marco, Dr. Wilson appears to adopt a functional view of value by arguing that abortion is a wiser choice “scientifically and medically.” While his position is slightly imposing (he “clearly makes his view known”), he prioritizes Jessica’s right to autonomy, telling Marco that the choice of abortion is “not his to make.” Notably, the right to autonomy is compliant with the Christian views that emphasize that each individual has personal freedom and should have the right to make decisions for oneself.
My opinion on the matter does not entirely agree with the essentialist or functioning theory of human value. On the one hand, I do believe all people possess inherent worth regardless of their physical attributes. I do not think that a disabled’s person’s life is worth any less than a fully functioning human, suggesting that my beliefs tend towards the essentialist theory. However, I do not regard a fetus as a fully formed human or a separate entity. Additionally, in my opinion, each individual should have the autonomy to decide what quality of life they are willing to accept. While some scientific reports confirm that a fetus can begin to feel pain at a 20-week mark, other studies lead me to believe that their cognition is unlikely to be fully formed (Bellieni, 2019; Friberg-Fernros, 2017). In this particular situation, I would prioritize the feelings of the mother on the matter. If she believes that her quality of life would be subsequently diminished, given her socioeconomic status, she should go through with the abortion. It is likely that carrying for a disabled child while working fifty hours a week and will likely negatively affect her mental and physical health.
As all humans have the right to autonomy and the pursuit of happiness as they see fit, the choice should be entirely up to the mother. At this stage of fetal development, I believe the mother’s life is worth more than the fetus’ which goes against the essentialist view. Interestingly, I would not hold the same opinion once the child is born and perceive their lives as equally worthy, regardless of the potential disability. The difference comes down to my perception of a fetus not as a fully formed human being, as opposed to the mother.
References
Bellieni, C. V. (2019). New insights into fetal pain. Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, 24(4), 101001.
Friberg-Fernros, H. (2017). Clashes of consensus: on the problem of both justifying abortion of fetuses with Down syndrome and rejecting infanticide. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 38(3), 195–212.
Stahl, D., & Kilner, J. (2019). The Image of God, Bioethics, and Persons with Profound Intellectual Disabilities. Journal of the Christian Institute on Disability, 6(1-2), 19-40.
White, N. (n.d.). God, Humanity, and Human Dignity [Word document].