Core defences
However, there are also many people encouraging the endorsement of abortion. Science dictates much of the verifiable evidence that centres the issue. It cannot be refuted, for example, that the foetus growing inside a mother's womb is a biological system that converts nutrients and oxygen into energy that causes its cells to divide, multiply, and grow. It is, consequently, alive. Then again, a single celled amoeba also coverts nutrients and oxygen into biological energy that causes its cells to divide, multiply and grow. It also contains a full set of its own DNA and is also alive. Being animate cannot then, be the defining issue. The difference, ultimately, is the consciousness that the foetus will attain as it grows into an independent, alert human being. However, this again leads to the concept of a potential person. This means that although it is asserted that the foetus is alive, it only has the capability of becoming a person and hence gaining the rights given to a human. It is argued from here, that it has not thus far fulfilled this capability and does not yet have human rights.
Another hypothesis often put forward is that the foetus becomes viable only when it can exist independently from the mother. This follows from the opinion that whilst the foetus is entirely reliant on the mother for life, it is not yet an individual in itself and as a result, is not entitled to human rights of its own. Indeed, without the mother’s life to provide it with nutrients and oxygen, it too, would cease to live on. They co-exist in the same bodily space and share the same risks. The mother’s actions are consequential to the foetus and any problems with the foetus can have an effect on the mother. In opposition to this, the anti-abortionists argue that the foetus remains dependent on others around it, long after it is born. However, this dependence is not physical and is a reliance on society to take care of it. It is not the reliance from one organism on the body of another for its survival. Philosopher Judith Jarvis Thompson aptly illustrated this in 1971, when she created the scenario in which a woman is taken hostage and wakes up to find that she has been surgically attached to a world-famous violinist who, for nine months, needs her body to survive. After those nine months, the violinist can survive as an individual, but must have this particular woman in order to survive until then. Thompson then asks if the woman is morally obliged to stay fixed to the violinist who is living off her body. It may be very worthy if she did, the world could have the benefit that would come from the violinist. Nevertheless, the question arises over whether she is morally obliged to let another being use her body to survive.
Ensoulment
Fundamental to the dilemma is the status of the embryo during the gestation period. Base materialism would maintain that it was no more than a group of cells. A central concept in religious and spiritual believers, however, is the concept of a soul or spirit as well as just the body. Both groups would concur that at a particular point, the body gains consciousness in some form of psyche. The idea of the soul originated in Ancient philosophy. Both Plato and Aristotle had much interest in its significance to our way of life. Plato was a dualist and believed the body and mind were detached from one another, but that the soul was locked within the body. The soul existed before the person and lived on after death. French philosopher Descartes carried on this dualism, stating that the soul (which he thought of as ‘mind’) and body were distinct but interrelated. This perspective influenced many religious thinkers, often leading to a negative view of the body, that it should be conquered by the mind in order for the higher righteousness.
It is generally acknowledged that Aristotle was a functionalist. He founded the idea of hylomorphism, that the soul and body co-existed despite them being separate entities. This also led to his understanding of mankind, as half soul and half body. Motionless objects were thought to have no soul and a ‘Prime Mover’ existed on the top of the scale that was entirely soul and no body. Christian theologian, St Thomas Aquinas carried forward these ideas, considering God to be this ‘Prime Mover’. The crucial issue for both the dualist and the functionalist is when the soul becomes implanted and hence, personhood begins.
Aquinas accepted the three Aristotelian stages in embryonic growth. He maintained that in early stages there was only a ‘vegetative soul’, followed by an ‘animal soul’ before we came to a ‘human soul’. (Wilcockson). From here, we can see that during gestation, Aristotle believed human beings moved up the scale of humanity, until we became human, with half soul and half mind. This means that it is only at this stage that the foetus becomes human and gains rights. Aquinas Christianised the idea somewhat, by affirming that it was God who breathes into the embryo the ‘new spirit’ when the embryo is prepared to receive it.
Previously, the Christian church had used these ideas as its scientific basis, pronouncing that God merged the soul with the body after 40 days with boys and after 90 days with girls. This, of course, led to the idea that abortion was allowable only if it occurred before this time. Indeed, Aquinas maintained that if a pregnant woman was harmed and subsequently aborted, this was not murder if it was before this time. (Vardy and Grosch). The judgement was vaguely made by when the foetus moved in the womb. The 17th century saw advances in scientific understanding and the Catholic Church established that ensoulment actually took place at conception. This was of great consequence and meant that once the egg was fertilised, a human being was created and thus its moral value should correspond to that of a fully-grown person. This led to an ardent attitude against abortion by Catholics and by other religious groups who considered it to be the equivalent of murder.
The primary challenge continues to be whether or not such a firm religious view can be sustained. Here, ensoulment is of much importance. Technology determines that a zygote may split into two and then come together again. If ensoulment has already occurred, then the question arises whether the soul that has been merged with the body, or breathed in by God can also be split in half.
Oneness of the Soul
Although there is very little written in scripture regarding the individuality of the soul, we can use ancient reasoning already considered above in attempting to make sense of the problem. Grounded in Aristotle’s understanding of humanity, there is a distinction between the soul and the body. Essential to this is that for an object to be the lowest on the scale, it must be entirely body and with no soul. The highest existence, in contrast, is entirely soul with no body or matter.
Furthermore, it is the soul that does the acting upon and the body that is acted upon. This the reason why an object without soul is lifeless and is only acted upon, and why human beings are in the middle, with both the soul and the body in equal measures, creating for us moral dilemmas, such as this one. It must follow then, that the highest living existence (the ‘Prime Mover’ or God), which is only soul, must only act and not be acted upon. There are a wealth of verses in the Bible that speak of the Oneness of God. One such example is Isaiah 46:9 I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. (JudeMinistries.Org)
If we consider that a Being such as God, made only from soul, is perfect, then it must follow that the soul represents perfection. Moreover, it is the body that for lesser beings such as humans and animals that taints them and makes them imperfect. This supports the thoughts offered by many religious thinkers that the body is sinful and must be overcome by the mind for the righteous path. We can therefore conclude that the soul is perfection, as the morally perfect Being is made up entirely from this. Perfection inherently holds the concept of oneness. Only when something is incomparable can it be perfect. When considering all of the rational principles examined above, we can see that the soul must have intrinsic oneness and thus goes some way in discrediting the view that the soul is united to the body at conception. The problem remains, though, for both spiritual and scientific perspectives. Even for those who do not believe in the soul, it is often agreed that at some point, the body gains an awareness and consciousness. It is also fairly established that this is the point when the foetus becomes viable and hence the abortion becomes unanimously immoral.
Boundaries
It is notoriously problematical to establish a universal principle for when the foetus reaches particular stages in its development. The boundaries often mark thresholds as opposed to unambiguous instants in the growth of a foetus. The thresholds are necessary from a political point of view, in legislation. Indeed, the exact point at which we begin our interpretation is arbitrary, for the biologist views development as a continuum. These clearly defined perimeters we search for make it easier to determine when it can be morally acceptable to go ahead with an action. It gives something defined and straightforward, whereas in reality the circumstances are much more widespread. The entire notion of ‘personhood’ is dependent on the presuppositions we have. In the same way a religious perspective gives us the natural belief in a soul, a social perspective involves the individual’s relationship with the community in a more open sense and a pragmatic stance might include some relation to the brain and perception development.
It is easy to credibly justify having set out boundaries, saying the foetus becomes distinct after 14 days when the cells begin to specialise from just a collection of cells, or after early neurological activity, or as is the case with many cultures, after birth. It makes the dilemma comprehendible and gives the opportunity for a definable universalisable law. After all, deontological ethics presented most notably by Kant, state that this is a duty when considering any moral action. The categorical imperative states that one universal law is applicable for all. In any case, furthering inquiring into the Kantian outlook would show that the maxim of the action would need to become a universal law for society. Needless to say, if abortion were to become conventional, it would prove far from a utopian society, if only for the unnaturalness of such mass impertinence regarding pro-creation.
Conflicting rights
Regardless of which status we consider the foetus to have, we must still balance its right against that of the mother. Unlike social dependence, where a pregnant woman's physical life is not threatened by the existence of another person, during pregnancy, a woman places herself in the course of physical harm for the benefit of a DNA life form that is only a potential person. Exposing herself to the threat of death brings us to the ultimate question of whether the rights of a potential person surpass the rights of the mother to control her body and protect herself from possibly severe danger. (Submissions. Org) In order to establish whether or not the pregnant woman has justification to carry out an abortion ultimately depends on her freedom to act over the unborn child that she is carrying.
It cannot be denied that a potential person has pre-eminence and must always be given full human rights. However, what is vital is that it interferes with the right of life and autonomy of another fully-grown and conscious human being. If the foetus is indeed born, it is because the mother chooses to turn down her own rights and her own physical protection in order to allow that future person to grow and develop inside her body. Beverly Harrison, in an article entitled ‘Our right to choose’ argues persuasively for the rights of the pregnant woman. She maintains that the abortion cannot be argued without considering the psychological and social position of the woman. Her point is one that is much affected by the male dominance throughout history. Since ‘The Fall’ of mankind in Genesis: 3, woman was made from the ribs of man and it is expressly stated that they will endure pain during childbirth. Women have been restricted to being mothers and their freedom has been limited. It cannot be denied that the woman’s views must be taken into account, it is her body that is being used and unquestionably, her life will be affected by it. However, it is the implications of choice that is central to this issue. The question is whether or not the rights of the woman can mean she has an undeniable power over the potential life form growing within her, and hence if it is her right to have an abortion.
Conclusion
Many people choose to take a middle ground in the issue and take the view that abortion is permissible only in certain circumstances. However, the very nature of the statement being considered means that we must consider whether or not the pregnant woman has an absolute right over the foetus within her. Some consider that the implications of this are the status of the foetus at particular points in the pregnancy. Many would argue that if the pregnant woman chooses to exercise control over her own body and to protect herself from the potential dangers of childbearing, then she has the full right to terminate the pregnancy. However, others would argue that the issue is also of responsibility and the pregnant woman must endure the consequences of her actions. A religious stance can vary depending on whether it disregards the Judeao-Christian old-fashioned traditions. In general, theists that believe in an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent often argue that the foetus has been given the capacity for life and this is the privilege of God and consequently has been done with a cause.
In solving this clash between whether the woman has an absolute authority over the foetus, the autonomy and physical freedom must be considered alongside the moral worth of the unborn child.
Word count: 3602
References
Books and Journals
1. The Fallacy of Person-denying Arguments for Abortion
William Cooney
Journal of Applied Philosophy, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1991
2. The thoroughly modern Aristotle: Was he really a functionalist?
Christopher D. Green York University
(1998) History of Psychology, 1, 8-20.
3. The human embryo in Arabic scientific and religious thought
Basim Musallam
The Human Embryo, University of Exeter Press.
4. ‘A Defence in Abortion’
P Singer
Applied Ethics (1986)
5. Personhood
Michael Tooley
A Companion to Bioethics, Blackwell Companions to Philosophy
6. Abortion and Personhood
Peter Vardy and Paul Grosch
The Puzzle of Ethics, Harper Collins publishers
7. The politics of human life
Michael Wilcockson
Issues of Life and Death, Hoddler and Stoughton
Websites
1. Abortion is murder… no ifs or buts
Submissions. Org
()
2. The Oneness of God
Jude Ministries.Org
()
