Abortion - Right or Wrong? - The No Difference Argument
Abortion - Right or Wrong? - The No Difference Argument
I have considered three main hypotheses used by defenders of abortion to try to justify it: One, that there is a line to be drawn, before which there is no person or only a potential person, after which there is a person. Two, that no one knows when a person comes into being, the agnostic position. And three, the gradualist position; that what is in the womb starts out being a nonperson but gradually becomes a person, a smooth transition from the impersonal to the personal. Now, underlying all these is a simple fact. That there is a being in the womb, distinct from his mother, who grows and develops, and is then born: a newborn baby.
Suppose we kill this newborn baby. For one thing, we cut short his life; we deprive him of his entire future. We deprive him of the most basic thing he has, which is presupposed for everything else: his life. Surely this is a great moral evil.
Suppose we kill this being shortly before birth. We deprive him of his whole future. Suppose it is earlier, and then earlier still. The same applies. The crucial point is this: no matter when we destroy the being in the womb, we deprive him of his entire future. From this all-important perspective, what difference does it make whether it is earlier or later? Either way, the being in the womb (regardless of how his status is now designated) is robbed of his entire future.
This makes the whole debate about where to draw the line, or whether we can know what the proper place is, or whether there is not perhaps a smooth transition from nonperson to person, totally irrelevant. For the being in the womb, it makes no difference (apart from pain) whether she is robbed of her entire future at an earlier or later date. The effect is the same: she is deprived of her future, and that is a terrible moral evil.
Whether I kill a sleeping person (painlessly) five minutes after he falls asleep at night, or five minutes before the alarm goes off in the morning makes no difference to him. Either way I cut short his whole future life; I deny him his existence as an awakened being. The being in the womb is in a "sleep," relative to the "awakened" state of his later life. What is the difference, for him, whether he is killed early or late in this "sleep"? Either way, his existence is ended.
Penalties
Consistent with justice, the penalty ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Whether I kill a sleeping person (painlessly) five minutes after he falls asleep at night, or five minutes before the alarm goes off in the morning makes no difference to him. Either way I cut short his whole future life; I deny him his existence as an awakened being. The being in the womb is in a "sleep," relative to the "awakened" state of his later life. What is the difference, for him, whether he is killed early or late in this "sleep"? Either way, his existence is ended.
Penalties
Consistent with justice, the penalty for a crime should be severe enough to provide maximum deterrence against committing it. So surely, murder of the preborn must be punished in the same way as murder of the born.
Exceptions
Should the law prohibiting abortion allow for exceptions? Specifically, to save the life of the woman and in cases of pregnancy due to rape or incest? A law incorporating such exceptions is advocated either because its proponents feel that such exceptions are justified and called for, or because they believe no other law is possible, that a law that mandates an exception less prohibition stands no chance of passage. They then argue that it is better to have a law that bans almost all abortions, and saves many lives, than the present situation (in the United States, and in much of the rest of the world) in which there is, in effect, abortion on demand. "Better to save most babies and allow a few to be killed, than to allow the number of abortions we have today."
The motives of such people are noble. They want to save as many lives as possible. And surely it is better to save some than none at all. If a thousand innocent people are about to be exterminated by the Nazis, and we can rescue only some, we should, of course, do so: better to save some than none at all. But is an abortion prohibition with an exception clause parallel to this?
In analyzing the question of exceptions, I will use the rape/incest case.
A law is enacted that says, in effect: Abortion is wrong; it is prohibited, except if the woman is pregnant due to rape or incest. Then abortion is permitted. What it says is that it is wrong to kill almost all babies in the womb, but all right to kill a few. For a child conceived in rape or incest, the law says, "You may kill this child for the benefit of his mother."
Even in the case of rape or incest, there is a child present, a real person, essentially like the rest of us. Abortion is murder, and remains murder when the victim is conceived in rape (or incest). The child is absolutely innocent, completely her own person, not a part of her father's character, just as she is not a part of her mother's body. Even assuming abortion benefits the woman, we cannot kill one innocent person to benefit another. The child has no duty to give up her life to try to benefit her mother, and we may therefore not force her to do so by killing her. If we do not kill the rapist for his crime, still less should we kill the child who has committed no crime. Abortion for rape is not a solution because it is an assault on the woman, a cure that aggravates the disease, and because it does not address the real problem of rape pregnancies (the social stigma against the woman and her child). And finally, abortion in the case of rape is more of the same: first a horrible violence against the woman, then a horrible violence against the child. For all these reasons, abortion in the case of rape (and incest) is not justified.
The child in the womb conceived in rape or incest has the same right to have her life protected by law as anyone else has. This means there can be no exception in the law for rape or incest. There are two fundamental reasons for this, one concerning the principle at stake, the other, the practical effects. The second follows naturally from the first.
The Actual Law
Here is what the law actually says, bullets below show;
'The Grounds For Abortion Under The 1967 Abortion Act and Amended Under section 37 of the Human Fertilization and Embryology Act 1990'
* The Continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman greater than if the pregnancy were terminated.
* The termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.
* *The continuation of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.
* *The continuation of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of any existing child(ren) of the family of the pregnant woman.
* There is substantial risk that if the child were born It would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.
Or in an Emergency;
* To save the life of the pregnant woman; or
* To prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.
*Grounds with a star may take place up to 24 weeks. All other grounds are without time limits.
Two doctors must give there assent to permit a doctor to carry out the abortion.
A conscience clause permits a doctor to refuse to be involved with an abortion.
This document was downloaded from Coursework.Info - The UK's Coursework Database