Introduction
Abortion is a very divisive topic that puts different sides, each one with its own set of arguments and views, against each other. While there are already reasonably safe medical procedures to ensure the removal of a fetus from the mother’s womb, there is still no end to the discussion of the ethical aspects of doing so. Termination of human pregnancy – often, although not always, during the first 28 weeks – relates to many broader issues, such as the right to life or the right to use one’s own body.
As a result, both proponents and opponents of abortion have amassed a broad range of arguments in favor of their respective positions throughout the decades of debating them with passion. Still, at the end of the day, the question of abortion is ultimately about whether a woman may decide what to do with her body and her life. If one holds that a woman has the moral right to make decisions about her health and existence, even at the expense of the unborn fetus, the only reasonable conclusion is acknowledging the right to abortion.
Body Rights
One major line of argument that justifies the case for abortion is as simple and intuitive as it is understandable: women have an indisputable right to decide what to do with their bodies. It is hardly arguable that every person has a sole and indivisible right to his or her body and should have the ultimate authority on what and how happens to it. It is also fairly obvious that women are persons – and, as such, entitled to the very same rights about their bodies as any conscious and sapient creature. With these premises, it is easy to understand the essence of the argument. Pregnancy is an inherently bodily experience that exclusively and extensively relies on women’s bodily capacity.
Given that it is “the mother’s right to decide what happens in and to her body,” it is also her right to decide whether she wants to be pregnant or not (Thomson). Thus, the argument is straightforward: as long as women are considered persons and, therefore, entitled to make decisions about their bodies, they have an inalienable right to decide on abortion as well.
Opponents of abortion have a long-standing tradition of objecting to this argument based on the human right to life, and this counterargument deserves to be considered at some length. Its main premise, which is also hardly arguable, states that all human beings have the inalienable right to live, and depriving them of life is morally impermissible. Its second premise – and a much shakier one at that – is that an unborn fetus constitutes a human being and, as such, is entitled to the same right to life (Thomson).
The debate on whether a fetus is actually a person depends entirely on the definition of personhood and usually revolves around the terms of pregnancy and the development of cognitive functions. However, for the sake of argument, it is possible to assume that a fetus is a full-fledged human being with all the rights that correspond to this status. If that is the case, then denying a fetus its right to live through abortion is immoral and impermissible. As the opponents of abortion would claim, women certainly have rights to their bodies, but these do not outweigh the fetus’s right to live.
However, this counterargument is hardly convincing because it fails to recognize women’s right to defend their existence. Thomson refutes it in its famous thought experiment by constructing an identical situation that is not related to pregnancy. Suppose a woman has been kidnapped and used as a blood donor for a famous violinist because only her blood can save him from dying. She is physically bound to the violinist and cannot stray away from him for at least nine months in a row, even though it results in worsening her own physical condition.
However, the hospital personnel insists that a violinist’s right to live outweighs the woman’s right to decide what happens with her body, effectively meaning that she has no say in the matter (Thomson). This situation mirrors the one with the abortion and illustrates that the emphasis on the fetus’ – or violinist’s – right to live leads to denying the woman’s right to decide what happens in her own life. It essentially denies the woman the same personhood that serves as a basis for a fetus’ or violinist’s claim to live – and, as such, is not a convincing objection.
Health Concerns
Another important reason why abortion is permissible and should be legal and accessible is the fact that pregnancy and childbirth are imbued with considerable health risks. The World Health Organization points out that abortion may be more or less dangerous to a woman’s health based on the pregnancy terms and the degree of the fetus’ development (Erdman 29). Moreover, pregnancy and childbirth can be more or less risky depending on the woman’s pre-existing medical conditions, such as obesity, high blood pressure, a range of diseases, and others. Apart from all that, pregnancy itself can have a wide array of complications, the most notable of which is abnormal fetus position that can complicate childbirth to the extreme.
Considering these facts, most international human body right also maintain that women should have the right to an abortion “when their life or health is at risk” (Rebouche 769). Once again, the essence of the argument is fairly simple: as long as women have the right to struggle for their health and life, they should have the right to an abortion.
The opponents of abortion could argue against this perspective by pointing out that abortion itself is not a perfectly safe procedure and carries substantial medical risks of its own. As such, they argue, abortion poses a risk to the very same health and life that its proponents claim to protect, which makes the health-based argument in its favor hollow and unconvincing. Admittedly, this position has some factual basis, and research suggests that a woman dying in the process of abortion is a possibility (Chemerinsky and Goodwin 64). Moreover, it is not limited to illegal and uncertified procedures, and a lethal outcome may occur even in a patented clinic (Chemerinsky and Goodwin 64).
Based on that, the opponents of abortion argue that the procedure is potentially harmful to women’s health and, as such, should be morally impermissible on the same grounds on which its proponents argue for it. From this perspective, portraying pregnancy as a danger to female health and recommending a solution that is potentially damaging and even deadly in its own right would be a sheer absurdity on its face.
However, this counterargument is as weak as the one discussed in the previous section and hardly stands up to criticism. Refuting it would not even require complex thought experiments as in the previous case because all that is necessary to clear the controversy is to compare the death rates associated with pregnancy and abortion. In this regard, the numbers do not favor the pro-life cause in the slightest. Statistics reveal that “an American woman is fourteen times more likely to die in pregnancy and childbirth than by terminating her pregnancy” (Chemerinsky and Goodwin 64).
It means that the claims stressing the dangers of abortion, even when factually correct, blatantly disguise the fact that the risks of pregnancy are an order of magnitude greater. With this in mind, the objection toward the health-based argument seems less like a genuine concern for women’s health and more like a crude attempt at coercion to influence their reproductive decisions. Regardless of its intent, there is no arguing that, although not perfectly safe, abortion carries fewer risks than pregnancy and childbirth, meaning that a woman’s right to decide on her health should encompass it.
Apart from that, it is also necessary to keep in mind the demographic statistics on abortion, especially when it comes to its incidence as compared to the women’s economic situation. A poor woman has more incentive to perform an abortion due to her doubts about sustaining a child as well as other reasons. According to statistics, the accidence of abortions in women with incomes below the federal poverty level in the United States between 2008 and 2014 was 36.6 per 1,000 women (Jones and Jerman 12).
It is more than two times as high as the national average of 14.6 abortions per 1,000 women and suggests that poverty and economic vulnerability strongly affect the decision (Jones and Jerman 12). Denying poor women the right to abortion will not fix their economic situation, which is often the main motivator behind the decision to have an abortion. Instead, it will only force them to unlicensed medical service providers that would perform the procedure with no guarantees and questionable safety. Hence, denying the right to abortion only worsens the situation for the most economically and socially vulnerable segment of the female population.
Conclusion
As one can see, while the issue of pregnancy termination is extremely divisive, any consideration that considers women’s rights should favor abortion rights. First and foremost, women have the right to make decisions concerning their bodies, which inevitably includes pregnancy and childbirth. Although the opponents of abortion may argue that it threatens the fetus’ right to live, which is itself debatable, this argument, when taken to a logical conclusion, denies women agency and even personhood. Apart from that, pregnancy and childbirth may have considerable risks for women’s health, reproductive or otherwise, and abortion is necessary and useful to mitigate and avoid such risks.
The opponents’ argument that abortion itself can be risky has some merit, but it should not obscure the fact that it is much safer than a complicated pregnancy. Moreover, denying the right to abortion will disproportionally affect the poorest and most vulnerable subset of the female population. Therefore, abortion is not only morally permissible but should also be legally and physically available to all women who may need to perform it.
Works Cited
Chemerinsky, Erwin, and Michele Goodwin. “Constitutional Gerrymandering against Abortion Rights: Nifla V. Becerra.” New York University Law Review, vol. 94, no. 1, 2019, pp. 1-124.
Erdman, Joann an. “Theorizing Time in Abortion Law and Human Rights.” Health and Human Rights Journal, vol. 19, no. 1, 2017, pp. 29-40.
Jones, Rachel K., and Jenna Jerman. “Population Group Abortion Rates and Lifetime Incidence of Abortion: the United States, 2008–2014.” The American Journal of Public Health, vol. 107, no. 12, 2017, pp. 1904-1909.
Rebouche, Rachel. “Abortion Rights as Human Rights.” Social & Legal Studies, vol. 25, no. 6, 2016, pp. 765-782.
Thomson, Judith J. “A Defense of Abortion.” University of Colorado. Web.