As an aspiring gynecologist, the daughter of an immigrant woman from the Middle East, and a woman myself, the argument over the right to abortion is of great importance to me. It’s an argument that affects my life and is an issue that I have the right to speak on.
First, I believe that every person should have the right to autonomy, or the right to make their own decisions about their bodies. No one is entitled to a woman’s body. I also believe that the âright to lifeâ should be protected and prioritized before all else. In this argument, I will define what this âright to lifeâ entails and back up this claim with sound evidence. By defining this right, I will prove which argument is the stronger one.
I will use two main pieces of textual evidence to help outline the different sides of the argument over abortion. These two pieces of text are Judith Jarvis Thomsonâs article, âA Defense of Abortion,â and Don Marquisâ article, âWhy Abortion is Immoral.â Each of these authors takes a different stance on abortion, either pro-life or pro-choice, while exploring the other side of the argument, taking turns to disprove the other’s claims. I will use their evidence and introduce some points of my own to fully depict each argument and show which argument has the strongest foundation.
First, let us examine the argument from a logistical standpoint. These are a few definitions of important terms we will refer back to throughout this essay.
Pro-Choice: Those who advocate for access to abortion.
Pro-Life: Those who advocate against access to abortion.
Abortion: The process of terminating a fetus before it reaches the state of viability.
This is the general definition of abortion. But this definition begs the question, at what point does a fetus become viable? There are many different responses to this question. Some may argue that a fetus does not become fully viable until it has exited the womb, and can live on its own, only then is it developed and human. For the sake of my argument, I will be following along with the pro-life viewpointâthat as soon as a fetus is conceived, it is viable and alive. I will then explore the counterpoints for why this view is problematic, similar to how Thomson outlined her article.
If a fetus is considered alive at the point of conception, then at what point should child support be granted? If a woman were to be unwed or separated and found herself with a child, then should she not receive child support from the moment the fetus is conceived? By this reasoning, yes, she should. If the viewpoint is that the fetus is truly a living human being, then the paternal figure should be held responsible from the moment of conception for the child’s well-being. Of course, this would come with its own set of complications regarding the ability of the paternal figure to provide for the child and the accountability of the government to enforce their compliance with this standard.
This question brings me to my second point. If the government were to take away a woman’s right to choose for herself, should then the government not help provide for the woman and the child? If the government were to take away a woman’s right to choose on the basis that the fetus is alive at the point of contraception, then shouldn’t the government provide means by which to assist the woman and the child? Let’s look at an example; if there was a young girl who had been a victim of rape and became pregnant because of this interaction and was denied the means to terminate the pregnancy by order of the government, then she should be compensated for this additional financial and mental burden. She should also be compensated for this violation of human rights, for she is her own person and should be allotted the right to make her own decisions about her health. Would the government take on this responsibility? Would it even be feasible?
As Thompson points out in her argument, âopponents of abortion commonly spend most of their time establishing that the fetus is a person, and hardly any time explaining the step from there to the impermissibility of abortionâ(48). The viewpoint that the fetus is alive from the moment of conception brings forth a whole array of complications regarding the rights that a woman has as a person and the legal issues with the consequences of this claim as well. This calls into question the foundation of this claim itself. What is the reasoning behind the fact that the fetus is alive at the point of conception?
Secondly, we must examine specific cases based on circumstance. It does no good to look at abortion just from a broad perspective because different instances in which abortion is demanded may hinder or assist these different viewpoints. Thomson outlines her argument by stating that âEvery person has a right to life.â Since a fetus is alive, then the fetus has this right. Though the two take different sides, Thomson being for abortion and Marquis being against abortion, their arguments overlap in situations where the mother’s life is being threatened. Thomson explores this argument in two ways. First, she states the extreme view; âSome won’t even make an exception for a case in which continuation of the pregnancy is likely to shorten the mother’s life; they regard abortion as impermissible even to save the mother’s lifeâ (50). Though she states these cases are rare and fewer in number, with the increase in laws against abortion in certain states (due to the reversal of Roe Vs. Wade), there has been a recent influx in cases where a mother’s well-being has been put aside for the law to be put first.
A few of these cases have been outlined in the article, âWhy the Post-Roe Era Requires Protecting Conscientious Provision as We Protect Conscientious Refusal in Healthcare”, written by esteemed members of the medical community, Isa Ryan, MD, MSc, Ashish Premkumar, MD, and Katie Watson, JD. This article explores the complexities of the new age that comes with the reversal of Roe Vs. Wade describes in detail the risks and precautions we, as a society, should take. Furthermore, this lack of treatment still happens frequently in states where abortion has been banned without exception, even for rape or incest; Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas.
This is an extreme view; not all pro-lifers share this perspective. As Marquis lays out in his argument, there are a few rare exceptions to this rule (ban against abortions), and one of them is when the mother’s life is in danger. Marquis argues that life should be protected and that killing is wrong, so he does not favor the loss of one life for another. Similarly, Thomson argues that when a mother’s life is put at risk, it should be seen in terms of self-defense. This way of thinking allows for some shared well-being so that the fetus is not a sole priority, but the safety of the woman is as well.
However, there are still a few key differences in these arguments that allow the authors to come to different conclusions even when considering the circumstances to be the same (the fetus is alive). An example of this is the role the physician should play. Marquis argues that the physician should be an unbiased third party. He is in direct opposition to “active killing” playing a direct role in ending someone’s life, as opposed to passively “letting die,” being a bystander to someone whose life is ending. These terms have been debated between the two arguments and have convoluted the role a doctor has in abortion. The view that the third party must stay neutral is often shared by those apart of the pro-life argument. In other words, the doctor does not have the right to choose who lives and dies. Thomson puts it this way: the act is only acceptable when a woman performs it on herself, despite the fact that lack of treatment by a professional can put the woman’s life at greater risk.
I want to pause here and note a crucial perspective whose importance has not been entirely ascertained in these texts. To fully understand the scope of abortion and the arguments both in favor of and against a woman’s right to choose, we must examine the role that women play in societyâhow they are viewed, controlled, and expected to act. For years, women have been put in the roles of homemakers and nurturers by the eyes of society. They are seen as caring figures whose primary purpose is to conceive and raise children, the future generation. Thomson goes into some detail about the implications women face when they seek abortion and how they are considered irresponsible or bad mothers. Neither of the two articles goes into depth on how these arguments affect how women are perceived in society, but I think it is a critical point to make.
In a society such as ours, where women have fought for their rights for generations, it is disheartening to see all that work being undone. I can see how some pro-choicers may view the reversal of Roe Vs. Wade as a direct attack on women breaking out of their preconceived roles in society just when women started to take matters into their own hands. Stepping out of the societal lens of mothers and wives, they are now forced back into that perspective by the laws that once gave them liberty. It can be argued that this was a tactic to keep women from progressing too far forward, keeping them tethered to society’s ideals. But a woman’s role in society is only a piece of this argument against abortion. The majority of it lies within the moral and ethical realm. So, let us discern what makes abortion immoral and if these implications are all they are made out to be.
The main perspective that the foundation of the pro-life argument is based on is that life is precious and the termination of life is immoral. Just as Marquis argues in his article, however, his reasoning is unique and produces a slightly altered message. Marquis does not put all killing under one umbrella. He argues that this practice is wrong and leads to confusion. âThe problem with broad principles is that they often embrace too much. In this particular instance, the principle âIt is always prima facie wrong to take a human lifeâ seems to entail that it is wrong to end the existence of a living human cancer-cell culture, on the grounds that the culture is both living and humanâ (185).
The common viewpoint is that killing is wrong because it is an act of harm and brutalization. However, Marquis’ perspective differs. He thinks killing is wrong because it strips the person of all other goods they may pursue in life. In other words, it is not the act of killing but the consequence of it, the fact that you are robbing someone of their future. âThe loss of oneâs life deprives one of all the experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted oneâs futureâ (189).
Although this argument is interesting, there is a flaw in Marquisâ reasoning. He argues that it is wrong to kill a fetus because âthe future of a standard fetus includes a set of experiences, projects, activities, and such which are identical with the futures of adult human beings and are identical with the futures of young childrenâ (192). However, that point is false. There is no guarantee that the fetus will reach adulthood, even infancy. There could always be a complication, either during the pregnancy or afterward. So, the argument that it is morally wrong to kill a fetus because it has an identical future to that of a human adult is not a sound one. Even if there were somehow a guarantee of the fetus reaching adulthood, there is no assurance of its quality of life. Saying that there is a future for it that is identical to an adult human being is vague. It leaves room for the argument that the future could be bleak and horrendous. A life that some may view as not worth livingâone of poverty, hardship, and loneliness.
Thomson has a different argument and offers a unique perspective on the pro-choice viewpoint through various thought experiments. One of these thought experiments was The Famous Violinist, a theoretical scenario where you wake up, and tubes attach you to a famous violinist behind you. You are then informed that you were drugged and kidnapped by the Society of Music Lovers to save the violinist’s life. To do so, you must stay there, hooked up to the musician, for 40 weeks. Though this argument may not be the best comparison regarding the right to abortion, Thomson’s argument that everyone has the right to make their own medical decisions remains viable. Only you have a right to your body. If you allow someone else to use it, that is kindness on your part. âNobody has a right to use your kidneys unless you give him such a right, and nobody has the right against you that you shall give him this rightâif you do allow him to go on using your kidneys, this is a kindness on your part and not something he can claim from you as his dueâ(55). She uses thought experiments such as the violinist to emphasize that such a thing would be supererogatory, for example, carrying a baby for 9 months despite the toll it would take on your body and mind.
Thomson also argues, through one of her other thought experiments, that the circumstances that lead to the abortion aren’t important. She uses an analogy of a house, the female reproductive system, with sealed doors and windows, to keep the seeds of men out to help argue that there is no guarantee you won’t get pregnant. Even if you use proper protection or abstain from sex entirely, there is still a chance for you to have an unwanted pregnancy. The only thing that matters is whether the woman wants to keep the fetus or not. âSomeone may argue that you are responsible for its rooting because, after all, you could have lived out your life with bare floors and furniture or with sealed windows and doors. But this wonât doâfor by the same token, anyone can avoid pregnancy due to rape by having a hysterectomy, or anyway by never leaving home without a (reliable!) armyâ (59). You can live your life as carefully as possible, but there could still be mishaps even when you take the proper measures. Even when you choose not to be sexually active, there could still be rape. A woman is not to blame for her situation, but the decision on what to do about it should be hers. To force a woman to have a child when she has no desire to violates the basis of what we would call a human right.
This brings me to my final point. By defining âthe right to lifeâ, I will prove which argument has had the strongest foundation and which comes out on top. The âright to lifeâ is the right to choose for yourself the quality, quantity, and well-being of your own life before all else. Following this definition, the right to life aligns with the right for a woman to choose for herself. To allow her the capability to make her own decisions regarding her body and health.
The pro-life argument is based solely on theoretical what-ifs, focusing too much on the when and not enough on the why. While the pro-choice argument is more firm in its understanding that life is unpredictable and that we as individuals should be allowed to make our own choices to protect ourselves and our well-being.
Works Cited
Isa, Ryan, MD, MSc, et al. “Why the Post-Roe Era Requires Protecting Conscientious Provision
as We Protect Conscientious Refusal in Health Care.” AMA Journal of EthicsÂŽ
Illuminating the Art of Medicine,
journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/why-post-roe-era-requires-protecting-conscientious-
provision-we-protect-conscientious-refusal-health/2022-09. Accessed 1 Dec. 2023.
Marquis, Don. “Why Abortion is Immoral.” Colorado.edu, 1989,
rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil215/Marquis.pdf. Accessed 2 Dec. 2023.
Thomson, Judith Jarvis. “A Defense of Abortion.” Colorado.edu, 1971,
rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil215/Thomson.pdf. Accessed 2 Dec. 2023.