Carribean Studies
Essay Preview: Carribean Studies
Report this essay
The central arguments in the abortion debate are deontological or rights-based. The view that all or almost all abortion should be illegal generally rests on the claims: that the existence and moral right to life of human beings (human organisms) begins at or near conception-fertilisation; that induced abortion is the deliberate and unjust killing of the fetus in violation of its right to life; and that the law should prohibit unjust violations of the right to life. The view that abortion should in most or all circumstances be legal generally rests on the claims: that women have a right to control what happens in and to their own bodies; that abortion is a just exercise of this right; and that the law should not criminalise just exercises of the right to control oneÐЎЦs own body.
Although both sides are likely to see the rights-based considerations as paramount, some popular arguments appeal to consequentialist or utilitarian considerations. For example, pro-life advocacy groups sometimes draw attention to the abortion-breast cancer hypothesis, post-abortion syndrome, and other alleged medical and psychological risks of abortion. On the other side, some pro-choice groups claim that criminalizing abortion will lead to the deaths of many women through ÐÐŽÐÒback-alley abortionsÐЎЦ; that unwanted children have a negative social impact (or conversely that abortion lowers the crime rate); or that reproductive rights are necessary to achieve the full and equal participation of women in society and the workforce. Consequentialist arguments on both sides tend to be vigorously disputed, though are not widely discussed in the philosophical literature
Abortion debates, especially pertaining to the legal ramifications of abortion laws, are often spearheaded by advocacy groups. These groups tend to fall into one of two camps, with people in favor of legal abortion describing themselves as pro-choice, while those against legal abortion call themselves pro-life. Both “pro-choice” and “pro-life” are loaded terms designed to make the opposition unappealing (anti-choice and anti-life).
Individuals often place different value on the lives of zygotes, embryos and fetuses at different points in gestation, putting different methods of abortion in different moral lights.
To what extent should a government be allowed to interfere with a womans reproduction? This is a major issue in a number of countries, such as India and China, which have tried to enforce types of birth control (including forced sterilization), and in the United States, which has historically limited access to birth control. A parallel question also runs through the debate over legalized abortion: to what extent is the right to life a basic human right that the state has an interest in protecting?
Some opponents of abortion are social conservatives, and are motivated not only by concerns about embryonic life but also by unease with, and opposition to, the modern lifestyle choices that they see the procedure as facilitating. Other opponents of abortion, such as the progressive activist Nat Hentoff, see the protection of unborn life as an essential element in the campaign for universal human rights.
The beginning of personhood (sometimes phrased ambiguously as “the beginning of life”): When is the embryo or fetus considered a person?
Universal human rights: Is aborting a zygote, embryo, or fetus a violation of human rights? What about fetuses with genetic disabilities? On the other hand, is not allowing a woman to terminate her unwanted pregnancy a violation of the womans human rights?
Circumstances of conception: How important are the circumstances of conception to the ultimate fate of the embryo or fetus? Does pregnancy induced by rape or incest, or by poor or non-existent birth control use change the permissibility of abortion?
Limit of government authority: Are laws controlling abortion violations of privacy and/or other personal liberty rights?
The central dilemma in the abortion debate is the clash of presumed and perceived rights. On one hand is the embryo or fetuss presumed right to life, and on the other is a womans presumed right to control her body (though the debate over the issue has become so complex that each of these terms has itself been extensively debated). One aspect of the issue involves defining at what point an embryo or fetus qualifies as a person, and gains the legal and/or moral right to life. Even if that could be agreed upon, that right would still need to be weighed against the rights of the woman. Yet another debate is the use of fetal and embryonic remains, such as in stem cell research, the chickenpox vaccine, and even the treatment of patients with Alzheimers disease.
While both sides have sought to influence public opinion (pregnant women, doctors, lawmakers, and voters) the main concern has been with influencing the law, and hence attaining legal support for their positions. Both have likewise drawn their rhetorical arguments from various domains, such as religion, philosophy, law morality and social pragmatism. Every aspect is controversial ÐÐŽX the lethal nature and personal, social, and moral effects of the procedure are compared against the social burdens, and sometimes physiological dangers, of carrying the fetus to term.
The “pro-life” argument is that an embryo (or, in later stages of development, a fetus) is a human being ÐÐŽX entitled to protection ÐÐŽX from the moment of either conception or implantation and therefore has a right to life that must be respected. According to this argument, abortion is homicide. Many take it a step further and say that, unless this homicide is somehow justified, perhaps because it is necessary to save the life of the woman, then abortion is murder.
Pro-life advocates sometimes claim that many women, particularly adolescent females, are pressured by boyfriends, husbands, or family members to go through with an abortion about which they are ambivalent or opposed to. This claim, which suggests that women are often offered too few practical alternatives to abortion, is perhaps meant to undermine the “pro-choice” label adopted by supporters of legalized abortion.
Pro-choice activists on the steps to rally for abortion rights on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
The “pro-choice” argument is that a womans right to control her pregnancy outweighs any right claimed for the embryo or fetus, which pro-choice advocates see as not yet having the full rights of a person. The pro-choice side sees abortion as a private medical decision that must not be