The issue with abortion, so far as Iâm concerned, is that of personhood. The issue is not about whether the fetus is human, or has the potential to become human, itâs about whether or not we can define it as a person.
You may have different ideas on the issue, but for me personhood rests solely with the issue of âindependenceâ. A fetus is dependant on its incubating mother for survival - it is in no way an independent being, in no way deserving of the title of âpersonhoodâ.
âAhaâ, you may say, âbut what about babies? Theyâre dependant on the mother too, does that mean we can go around killing babies?â. The difference between the post-naetal fetus (i.e. a baby) and the pre-naetal fetus though, is that while the baby may be dependant on another human for itâs survival, it is now capable of surving independantly of its natural mother. The mother may die in labour, but the baby may be nurtured by an aunt or another relative. This is what I mean by independence - the baby, as a being, is no longer merely an extension of the mother. It attains personhood - and the full rights associated with this this titile - at its moment of independence.
âHumanityâ is no basis for the morality of abortion - my appendix is human, so is it âmurderâ when I have it removed?
Similarly, âpotentialityâ for personhood is no basis either - could we send every masturbatory male and every mestrual female to trial for allowing the death of a potential person?
The grey area when it comes to abortion, then, is merely at which point can we say that the fetus is deserving of personhood. Generally, any fetus aborted pre-tri-semester has little chance of surviving on its own. 21 - 25 weeks after conception is where, generally, the majority of fetusâs are not yet developed enough to pass the independence test. Any fetus aborted after this period though, has a reasonable chance of surviving and so this is where I draw the line, morally, between abortion and infanticide. The only permissable tri-semester abortions, in my opinion, are those where the fetus threatens the life of the mother or where the fetus is demostrably deformed or has been identified as having a degerative disease or condition which renders the possibility of a âhappyâ life impossible (many such conditions cannot be identified until late in the pregnancy). So far as Iâm concerned - and Iâm sure many of you will disagree with me - there are some states of existence that no individual, potential or otherwise, should be forced to endure. If you have a strong stomach, look up âHarlequin Fetusâ in Google (I would do it myself, but the images of these retched creatures are among the most sad, disturbing things I have ever seen) and tell me that any mother should be forced into labour when such ârun-away psoriasisâ has been identified in the fetus. And this is just one of many fetal abnormalities - of varying degrees of grotesqueness - that would render any potential âmeaningfulâ life on behalf of the developing fetus impossible.
In addition to all this, it should be pointed out that I am not âencouragingâ abortion here, merely recognising that abortion is the last choice in a desperate situation and as such, given the good, well-thought out reasons a woman considers before going under the knife, it should be recognised as a legitimate medical undertaking without the pseudo-religious moral dogma usually associated with it. No woman wants to have an abortion - it is always a heart-renching decision. People who oppose abortion often overlook this fact. Perhaps the fetus was only conceived through irresponsible sexual activity. Perhaps the couple should have taken more care - but to what extent does this responsibilty extend? Can you force a woman to have a baby against her will? Is that going to be good for the woman or her child? Must she forever pay for a mistake she was too naive to avoid? Must the child pay for her mistake by being raised in a family it is not wanted in, and - perhaps - it cannot be supported by materially?
If abortion is immoral, how about the alternative?
