The Catholic Church teaches that the soul is immortal and your soul and body is what makes you a person. The body alone cannot make you a person, but after death your soul lives one? So, does this mean that our soul exists before we are conceived? Is being immortal the same as being infinite? If it is then abortion is not an issue, as our souls will be reincarnated into another human or is alive in an after life of some kind and we are not killing a person but only a human form of clothing, as it were, for the soul. Catholics cannot teach that the soul is immortal as it means it has a beginning and therefore it must have an end but Catholics teach that the soul is only ‘infinite’ after death.
The British Medical Association (BMA) holds that the act of abortion is not right or wrong in itself. The BMA support the Abortion Act of 1967 as a ‘practical and humane piece of legalisation.’ The BMA’s advice to its members is to out within the limitations of the law and of their own conscience. Medical practitioners, who support the use of foetal tissue in medical research, seem to accept the practice of abortion as it can be justified on the grounds that it contributes to preserving the lives and health of others.
Michael Tooley in his book ‘Abortion and Infanticide’ defends both abortion and infanticide. He argues that a person can only have a right to something he or she wants and since children and babies do not realise they have futures they cannot want to have them and have no right to them. This argument may seem some what barbaric to most people but British law does state that abortions can be carried out until birth if the child will be born seriously handicapped and if the child survives after the abortion and is allowed to die on a table then this is classed as infanticide and Tooley’s argument defends this. According to SPUC (Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child) legalised abortion could lead to increasing contempt for newborn babies who are disabled. Infanticide is illegal in the UK, but some doctors have admitted to killing disabled babies by methods including sedating and starving them to death. This can be classed as compulsory euthanasia and is seen as unethical as the newborn baby’s right to life is not given a chance to develop.
Feminism has influenced the ‘right to choose’ movement as child bearing is seen to be at the centre of women’s domestic stereotype. If women can move away from this stereotype then the feminist will believe that a woman’s oppression can be lifted as she is defying traditional family life. In today’s society this argument would be somewhat weak as feminism is not such a big issue due to equal rights. It seems unethical to kill a human, or a potential human, in a response to some women feeling oppressed. Do the rights of the mother matter more than the rights of the foetus? Pro-choice activists say that a woman’s body is her own and the foetus is an invader of her body, if she wants to keep the invader then it is up to her and if she wants to expel it from her body then it is up to her also. The idea of the invader comes from the ethical philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson who is believes strongly that the woman has the right to choose, as it is her body. If the foetus has rights we cannot take those rights away, as we have not got the authority and if the foetus is a person then no one human life is greater than the other. Peter Singer says that we should ‘accord the life of a foetus no greater value than the life of a nonhuman animal at a similar level of rationality, self-consciousness, awareness, capacity to feel.’ Singer holds that, like Tooley, the foetus maybe seen as human but cannot be called a person as being a person and being human are not the same thing, and like Tooley, Singer says that ‘since no foetus is a person, no foetus has the same claim to life as a person.’ There is one similarity that I can see between Tooley and Singer’s argument; Singer only holds this argument until birth whereas Tooley’s argument extends beyond birth and defends infanticide.
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that tries to solve moral dilemmas like abortion. It’s most basic fundamental principle is the right action is that which produces the greatest amount of happiness or pleasure for the greatest number of people (utility calculus). Generally utilitarians are divided into two groups, rule and act utilitarians. Act utilitarians would except that abortion would be wrong if the unborn child holds a gene that can help cure AIDS, even though as a consequence of the birth the mother would die. In a ‘normal’ situation if the mother was going to die then most people would except that abortion would be the right thing to do. But as the birth of the child would benefit millions of people worldwide, the amount of pain experienced by the grieving family is insignificant compared to the happiness experienced by the people who will be cured. However, rule utilitarians believe that if you destroy life in one situation then life everywhere is threatened and that the greater good is achieved by giving all life a chance to develop and to fulfil it’s potential. Once life is devalued at one particular point then all life is under threat. Even though the Catholic Church condemns both types utilitarianism as it does not present any action as morally right or wrong, Pope John Paul II in the Gospel of life number twenty writes that committing a sin like abortion and euthanasia threatens freedom everywhere as governments pass laws that allow abortion to seem morally right, “I tell you the truth, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin” (Jn8: 34). This view is quite similar to rule utilitarianism, yet it is condemned by the Vatican who seem to stand on the same picket line.
Some countries like China and Sweden have used abortion campaigns to either help increase or decrease abortions. China has a pro-abortion policy, as China is extremely over-populated, whereas Sweden has taken the anti-abortion approach as it has a sparsely populated country. Abortion here is used as a way of controlling population. In some African countries, abortion is legalised because, like in China, overpopulation is causing many deaths due to famine, poverty and natural hazards. From a utilitarian point of view, this can be justified as the amount of pain suffered by the millions in poverty or suffering from starvation exceeds the amount of pain caused by aborting a baby. In Britain abortion could help solve the problem of unwanted and abandoned children in homes, awaiting adoption. However, adoption is used, as an argument against abortion as it proves there is always another choice rather than terminating the foetus.
Betty Friedan extends to the unwanted child the right to be aborted, ‘the value of life…the life of the right of the child to be wanted in life.’ So assuming that the foetus is a person, he or she has the right to be aborted if there is a certainty that they will not feel needed. This is a weak argument as the foetus cannot tell us whether it wants to be aborted or not, so we are still deciding whether to take the life away or not. Also, if the foetus could tell us that it wanted to be aborted, would this be classed as euthanasia and does this help justify euthanasia? However, Friedan does bring up the question of human rights. If the foetus has rights like you and I then it has the right to a life of dignity. If the foetus knows it’s quality of life will be poor then it can decide whether it wants to live and this is obviously an argument for euthanasia.
Consider this, a woman has three young children and her husband dies in a car crash. After the funeral she finds out that she is pregnant. She works in a local supermarket and her wage is not enough to clothe, feed and house her three children and herself at the moment. Having the baby would cause tension in the family and cause even more money troubles, as she would have to quit her job to look after her children. How would various ethical theories judge whether abortion in this circumstance is morally right or wrong? Would British law allow an abortion?
Most Christian Church would not allow abortion as the mother’s life is not in danger and the foetus is a person and murder is wrong, “You shall not murder” (Ex20: 13). Act utilitarians would allow abortion as the pain caused by the birth of the child due to an over crowded house and lack of money, which may lead to bullying in school for the children, poor health and social deprivation is of less importance if the unborn child were to be aborted. Utilitarianism can be criticised at three points, the first being that it relies on the predictive value of situations. How are we to know that the unborn child will go on to become a world-class brain surgeon and help thousands of people to live? Secondly, how do you quantify pain or pleasure? Can it be measured in chronological years? Is the pain I feel greater than anybody else’s? Finally, what counts as pain or pleasure? Is the pain caused in the above scenario as important as the pain the woman felt when her husband died, and if so what is the greatest pain or pleasure you can experience. Pro-choice activists would allow the mother to choose what to do as it is her body and she has the right to do whatever she likes to it or with it. Situation Ethics states that the only the way you judge an action is upon the consequence and the only criterion that allows you to judge whether the action is morally right or wrong is agape. The most loving thing to do in the situation above is to allow the woman to have an abortion.
Christian beliefs and the beliefs of some ethical philosophers tend to conflict on one main point, the sanctity of life. Christians believe that life is a gift from God and no one has the right to take that life away except God. Life is sacred and begins at conception. The two opposing sides disagree on the answer to two questions; when does life begin and is the foetus a person (i.e. has a soul)? Medical p˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0ractitioners seem to accept abortion when it is going to beneficial to medical science for example for researching stem cells. Ethical philosophers are searching for the answers that Christians already seem to have, when does life begin? The Bible tells Christians that life is sacred, and the church has interpreted this for abortion and other ethical dilemmas. In the book of Jeremiah God says ‘before I formed you in the womb you were mine’ (Jer1: 5). The Bible and the church seems to offer answers to ethical issues but if you look into situations more, you may start to see that things are not just black and white and this is what ethical philosophers do; they do not want the answers given to them on a plate they need to find the answers themselves.
Public General Acts and Measures of 1967, Elizabeth II, Chapter 87, page 2033
The HarperCollins Encyclopaedia of Catholicism, Richard P McBrien (General Editor), HarperCollins Publishers, 1995
Abortion and Infanticide by Michael Tooley, Oxford University Press, 1983
Practical Ethics Second Edition by Peter Singer, Cambridge University Press, 1999
Practical Ethics Second Edition by Peter Singer, Cambridge University Press, 1999
The Gospel of Life, #20, John Paul II, 1995
Twenty years after the feminine mystique, New York Times Magazine, 23rd February 1983