Is Abortion a moral right or morally wrong - Part 1

The pro-life position, in establishing a case the for humanity, personhood, and intrinsic value of the unborn, based on scientific and philosophical reasoning, is arguably rationally and morally justified. By contrast the abortion-choice position ultimately lacks substance in establishing the claim that a woman has a right to an abortion, which entails killing a human embryo or fetus prior to being born.

Are there any good or compelling reasons to think that abortion is morally wrong or is it a matter of subjective judgment? Whose side of the debate is supported by the evidence and can be defended cogently in the face of objections? In this blog series I will defend five contentions. First, I will clarify the real issue in the abortion debate. Second, I will argue that the unborn is intrinsically valuable as a human person, through science and philosophy, and that killing it through an abortion procedure is morally wrong. Third, I will address popular level objections to the pro-life position from scientific and philosophical angles. Fourth, I will address the crucial arguments against the pro-life position from Judith Thomson, David Boonin, and others and attempt to show why they fail to succeed. And fifth, I will address one particular objection that could undermine the entire abortion debate for both sides of the issue.

Judith Thomson argues in A Defense of Abortion that a woman has the right to an abortion based on two considerations and analogies she gives: the violinist and the right to self-defense. Consequently her argument stresses the point that a woman has the right to defend her body against a fetus that endangers her life – resulting in an abortion – and has the right to withhold bodily support from the fetus that will result in its death, even while granting the pro life claim that the unborn is biologically a human being, is a person, and has a right to life. Additionally, David Boonin argues in his book A Defense of Abortion that the fetus must obtain, what he calls, organized cortical brain activity that will enable the fetus to have desires and hence a right to life. Abortion is morally justified prior to the fetus’ acquiring cortical brain activity.

It is not the goal of this blog series to provide indubitable proofs for either side since absolute certainty is virtually impossible to attain in most areas of life. Rather the goal is to present a case that is scientifically and philosophically defensible enough to withstand some of the strongest objections to the pro-life position.

Before I begin, there are some preliminary comments I need to make so as to clarify what I will and will not be arguing in this paper. First, I will not be arguing for any possible motivations one might have to either have an abortion or why they support a woman’s right to it. I am here to discuss reasons that I think are persuasive why I am morally opposed to abortion. Second, I will only present arguments that I have found persuasive and have studied in some detail. There are many other arguments for and against abortion choice that will not be covered in this paper.

There are essentially two stances, morally speaking, that one can take on this issue: either abortion is morally justified or it is not. There is no third alternative. Pro-life advocates claim that killing a defenseless human being is morally wrong and that abortion does that. They argue that on the basis of the unborn as a human person who is intrinsically valuable. Abortion rights advocates argue possibly two views: (1) Abortion is always acceptable at any stage during pregnancy; (2) Abortion is acceptable at certain stages of pregnancy but not others when the fetus has acquired certain levels of development (viability) or self-awareness that qualifies it as a person with a right to life (i.e. past 20 weeks of gestation). Philosopher and defender of abortion rights David Boonin argues in his book A Defense of Abortion in support of # 2.

Anti-abortion or pro-life advocates are opposed to #1 and #2. Both sides could be wrong. We may never know the human, personhood, and moral status of the unborn. But neither side can be simultaneously right morally speaking because they contradict each other. Essentially, the primary difference between pro-life advocates and abortion rights advocates is their view of the unborn in virtue of what makes it a person. Abortion rights advocates are willing to grant the unborn are human beings but they would distinguish between human persons and human non-persons. A proponent of this distinction is Mary Anne Warren in her article On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion in the book The Problem of Abortion edited by Joel Feinberg. Pro-life advocates claim that the unborn is a person in virtue of the kind of nature it has, not in virtue of certain powers or properties it can gain or lose at any given moment (i.e. self awareness). Abortion rights advocates would defend Warren’s view. They cannot both be correct because their claims are contradictory. Hence, one must carefully evaluate both sides of the debate and decide which side has the most compelling arguments.

In summary, I will not be arguing for any possible motivations one might have to either have an abortion or why they support a woman’s right to it and I will only present the arguments that have persuaded me in this study.