Abortion

Supporters of abortion campaign for the woman’s right to choose an abortion. I would like to provide a critical response to the legitimacy of this claim, and also look at how it relate to the recent abortion bill approved by the Victorian state government.

Is a foetus a ‘person’?
The crux of the argument rests on how one answers this question. Personally, I would be prone to thinking that life begins at conception, and therefore the foetus is a morally significant person. I take this view because I find no other point at which life can be distinguished. I would argue that late-stage abortion is morally equivalent to infanticide, making it inconsistent to defend one and not the other. Derek Parfit, a British philosopher, has argued that survival is a matter of degrees rather than a matter of all-or-nothing. So one could say a foetus is gradually more and more of a life as it develops, a process that may begin even before conception and would continue without ever reaching a final point. Though I don’t accept this, it seems to be the only real alternative to life from the time of conception.

Rights of the woman
Right to security of the person
Every person, including a pregnant woman, has an inherent dignity that grants them a right to life and security of person. As such, if the process of giving birth would threaten a woman’s life and welfare, then there are, I would think, reasonable grounds for considering an abortion. Although the foetus’ life is of value, I can’t see that we are in any position to prioritise this life over that of the mother. I would argue that in cases where there is a reason to believe the mother’s life would be endangered (beyond normal expectations), the choice of abortion should be made available.

In any case where the actual life and security of the mother are not endangered beyond what may be expected of childbirth, there should be no claim for an abortion. Serious medical, financial or psychological detriment to the mother resulting from raising a child I would consider insufficient grounds for terminating the life of the unborn child. Rather, avenues such as adoption should be considered. I understand that this is terribly difficult for a mother, but I would consider abortion more morally repulsive.

Right over a child
I would argue that parents should have the right to raise their children, and do so in a manner that they perceive as best for the child. However, in an abusive household it is just that the child be removed from the care of their parents for their own protection.* The child’s right to safety, as it were, trumps that of the parent’s right to raise their child in a manner they see fit. So, parents do not have a right over their child in any absolute sense.

Extending this ethic, one would have to agree that any parent who desires and actively pursues the death (or injury) of their child forfeits any right to care that they might have otherwise had. Any mother pursuing an abortion is just the parent who should be denied freedom over the child for which they have so little affection.

Rights of the child
As I made clear before, I consider a foetus a person and, as such, it also has claim to a right to life and security of person. This view is heavily influence by my Christian worldview, which insists both in the dignity of all humans and the moral significance of an unborn child, expressed in biblical passages like Psalm 22:10 and Psalm 139:13.

My previous comments should show how the right to life and security relate to abortion. But I should make clear that these rights necessitate humane manner in which an abortion must be carried out, if one were to occur (as I granted may be defensible in very specific circumstances). There must be minimal pain to both mother and child, and I would also insist on the availability of psychiatric assistance for the mother.

Victorian Abortion Bill
There a number of issues specific to the bill recently passed that I feel are worthy of note:
(1) It makes no restrictions on the means by which abortion is carried out, allowing for inhumane methods.
(2) It allows abortion at any stage of pregnancy. This is particularly significant if we judge ‘personness’ as a continuous concept (Parfit), where a nine-month-old is more morally significant than a one-month-old foetus.
(3) It jeopardises the freedoms of doctors by demanding that they either carry out an abortion or refer patients to a doctor that will.
(4) In my opinion it is wrong that abortion should be seen as purely the choice of the mother, disregarding the other parent. I think that fathers ought to be involved in the process (although this right may excluded if they have no continuing contact with the mother and would be unlikely to be involved in the child’s life if an abortion did not occur).

Although I do not readily support a government system that imposes the moral views of a minority upon a majority, I think the case ought to be made in this case. I am not sure what proportion of the population supports each side, but a (relatively small) majority seems to support legalising abortion. But if the people supported the use of torture would that be sufficient reason for legalising such an atrocity? In my opinion, abortion is excluded in the international laws that affirm human rights (such as the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) recognised by the Australian and, by extension, Victorian governments.


* Practically, of course, it is difficult to enforce this ethic. An outsider will never fully know what goes on in the household. Also, ‘abusive’ is no exclusive category, but a situation may be abusive to lesser or greater degrees. But ultimately, the courts must be responsible for determining the outcome.