Abortion In The USA: Need Of A Balance Between Pro-life And Pro-choice

downloadDownload
  • Words 1824
  • Pages 4
Download PDF

The complexity associated with the controversial topic of abortion in the United States and across the world is apparent from the ongoing debate between pro-life and pro-choice advocates. The debate has brought in religious, social, and economic perspectives as well as moral considerations including the fetus as a potential individual, the comparison of abortion to infanticide, and the championing of the rights of the fetus. In addition, rather philosophical arguments propose the phenomenological perspective of pregnancy and the definition of the beginning of life itself. Overarching all of these points, the pro-life argument as a whole stresses the importance of respect for the preservation of life and treating the fetus as an individual with equal rights. At the same time, this argument ignores the right of the woman to have control over her body and the various situations that may result in an unwanted pregnancy. With such a spectrum of views on this issue, it is obvious that blanket statements and universal law on abortion are more of a dream than a reality. Also, it is apparent that flexibility must be a key aspect in determining the legality of abortion in different scenarios. Two key instances in which abortion should be considered morally justified are represented by the “life not worth living” and the “rights of the woman” arguments. At the same time, however, limitations should be established to prevent the misuse of the right to abortion in all cases.

Abortion is morally justified when the desire or capacity to raise a child or the quality of life the child will recieve are compromised. While the primary focus in many arguments related to abortion appear to be the point during a pregnancy after which abortion shuld be allowed, as in the debate regarding the ‘heartbeat’ laws that have been passed in Georgia and other US states, an important consideration is the life of the child if abortion were to be avoided in a particular case. This perspective represents a key aspect of the determination of the legality of abortion as it may be a method by which an unfulfilling or undesirable life for the fetus may be avoided. In some cases, the mother may not want to care for the child as to not overburden herself and in others a family may simply not be financially stable enough to support the child. A fetus known to contain a disability, for example, may represent an unwanted burden for the family, particularly if the family already has a disabled child and knows the obstacles associated with such a life. Down syndrome is such a disability that can be detected in the fetus and may warrant consideration of abortion. The disease is the most common congenital defect for which abortion is performed in England and Wales. In the US, between 60% and 90% of fetuses with Down syndrome were aborted across six states according to a 2012 review. In a 2017 case, the Supreme Court of India ruled that abortion was not legal for a 26-week-old fetus belonging to a family of the lower middle class that already had a special needs child. The ruling was a result of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act of 1971 according to which 20 weeks is the limit after which abortion of the fetus was deemed illegal. However, the ruling ignored the socioeconomic status of the family because of which a lack of awareness of applying for a court appeal was present. This attribute along with the long process of screening tests as well as a confirmatory test of the disability contributed to a delay in presentation of the case. Repeated tests likely also presented financial difficulties to the family. In a different case, however, a family with a better socioeconomic status was granted permission to abort a 24-week-old fetus with detected abnormalities as the mother was treated in a well-known hospital and the family was more aware of legal proceedings. The result of such disparity and lack of flexibility on the Supreme Court’s part is imposition of a life on the family. Given that the family likely struggles financially and has to bear the stress of providing for two children of special needs, the upbringing of the child may be compromised as well as his or her emotional, physical, and social needs. In addition, children with Down syndrome exhibit a higher risk of hearing loss, obstructive sleep apnea, ear infections, eye disease, congenital heart disease, etc. compared to those without this disability. A lack of care for the child, therefore, may lead to not only emotional detachment but also physical deterioration, and, in the worst cases, even death. As such, abortion should be a legal option for these families to prevent such suffering for both parents and the child. In addition to the case of special needs children, teen pregnancies may represent another situation in which the capacity for care of the child may be compromised due to a lack of financial stability of the parents and, in general, a desire to avoid an unwanted responsibility. Flexibility should be allowed in these cases as well to protect a potential being from an unfulfilling life. The option to prevent such a life for a child may be a moral obligation of the law and of society overall.

Click to get a unique essay

Our writers can write you a new plagiarism-free essay on any topic

Along the lines of care for the child, abortion should also be an available option when the mother herself does not want to concieve or endure a pregnancy given particular circumstances. An important perspective of this issue that sheds light on the personal nature of conception and the relevance of this side of the issue to legal considerations is that of phenomenology. In phenomenology, the body is not only considered an entity that is owned by someone but also one that defines that somebody. In the case of a pregnant woman, that “way of being” undergoes considerable changes as a pregnancy progresses. Quickening, for instance, allows for the pregnant woman to actually feel a living organism inside her body as a result of the fetus moving and kicking. The act of actually birthing a child is associated with a significant amount of pain as well. These experiences point to the perspective of the woman and her right over her body. Thus, while pro-life advocates may argue for the status of the embryo and against the morally wrong act of ending a potential life, the phenomenological perspective may give the woman a greater role. The question that arises, then, is in what situations should this perspective be utilized to lend the woman greater authority over her body and the prospect of abortion? Rape and incest are specific cases in which the woman should have this authority. Additionally, a lack of negotiation in sexual intercourse, limited access to contraception, and health disparity may all play a role in the development of an unwanted pregnancy. In fact, greater than 40% of pregnancies, half of which lead to abortion, worldwide are unanticipated. The physical experience of pregnancy in these cases, including the quickening process, may make the woman feel disconnected and alienated from the developing fetus. Physical danger to the mother aside, a human rights perspective is also of importance in such pregnancies. Preventing abortion in these cases via a heartbeat law, for instance, which often suggests an upper limit for abortion around the time when the mother may first learn of her pregnancy, may force a woman essentially into servitude toward an unwanted fetus. Such a forced state of involuntary servitude, in turn, has been compared to slavery and a violation of civil rights. Both Article 8 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the 13th Amendment of the US constitution clearly condemn slavery. Because unwanted pregnancy constitutes unwilling servitude of one being for another’s, in this case the fetus’s, benefit, these legal standards are very much applicable. Additionally, when a pregnancy results in such cases, an emotional connection between the woman and fetus may be absent, thus making the mother comparable to an organ donor or simply a vessel to be used by another being. Thus, these cases must seriously consider the woman’s point of view and the scenario that resulted in intercourse and pregnancy. A general gestational upper limit of 16 weeks, for example, should not be imposed having not considered both the woman’s decision and the pregnant woman’s perspective as obtained from phenomenology. Granting flexibility in this limit is morally justified, therefore, in cases that present more personal scenarios and that may have negative implications for both mother and child.

Given the scenarios presented above, it is apparent that abortion must be studied carefully on a case-by-cases basis. At the same time, however, it is important to note that such flexibility must not be abused. From a legal standpoint, a variety of perspectives, including the mother’s and family’s opinion, financial stability, awareness of contraception and reproductive services, the situation that resulted in the pregnancy, etc. must be integrated into the decision-making process. Aside from the moral requirements to respect the rights of the mother in unplanned or even forced pregnancies and to consider the quality of life available for the child, respect for the preservation of potential life must be maintained. In situations that do not warrant complex moral considerations or controversial decisions, an upper limit after which abortion would be legal could be upheld, therefore, to satisfy the pro-life side of this issue. Simultaneously, however, it must be apparent in any case that the mother and family had the opportunity to consider abortion before and/or near the gestational upper limit to prevent the court from becoming the sole decision-maker in such a personal matter, as was the case in the 2017 Down syndrome case in India. As a result, the pro-choice argument may also be somewhat respected and an effective middle ground may be reached. As the politics of abortion are diverse and wide-ranging, so too are the cases themselves. In establishing and executing law, courts must be willing to invest the time and effort to study cases on different levels and allow for integration of different opinions and lenses. As the debate rages on, it is hard to imagine that the law will be consistent from country to country, let alone from state to state within a country. However, such insightful analysis of cases and of the lives of the mother and family may make decision-making more fair and acceptable. As stated, the moral responsibilities of respecting the mother’s rights in forced pregnancies and of envisioning the life of the unborn child should remain acceptable cases for extension of the gestational limit for abortion. Nevertheless, while the establishment of a specific limit appears to be a major issue in the debate, a balance between pro-life and pro-choice must be achieved in other cases no matter what limit has been legally established. Such an adaptable procedure may be desirable in such a complex and multilayered issue as the right to abortion.

image

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy.