Pro life reasons why abortion is wrong

For example, if members of another species were rational and moral but just not homo sapiens, biologically, we might still say they were persons. Another example of persons not human would be a race of alien beings living on another planet who behaved morally and rationally but were clearly not human. The moral rights of a human person: Human beings are typically considered to be persons, so we may speak of human persons.

The right to life includes the right not to be murdered. But self defense is generally considered morally permissible. But if every human person has a right to life, the question arises of whether killing the attacker in self-defense violates the right to life of the attacker.

Different interpretations of this situation are possible. Or one could say that rather than having a right to life per se, a human has a right not to be killed unjustly. Killing a violent attacker is an instance of a just killing. Relevance of these issues to the abortion controversy: The morality of abortion depends to some extent on how the embryo or fetus deserves to be treated: in what sense it is a moral patient, whether it has the moral rights not to be harmed and to pursue a life, what kind of moral consideration it is owed.

We seem to take the moral status of a being to depend on its metaphysical or physical status. For example, we think humans and rocks deserve different kinds of treatment because they are different metaphysically or physically. So it might be that the moral status of an embryo or fetus depends on its metaphysical or physical status: whether it is a person, whether it is conscious, whether it has a soul, etc. Moral status alone might not determine whether abortion is morally permissible, though, for some thinkers believe other factors might override the moral status of the fetus.

The situation is complicated by the fact that the embryo and fetus are undergoing continual physical development.

The physical development of the embryo and fetus occur during a nine-month period. First an egg cell oocyte or ovum is fertilized by a sperm cell spermatozoon during a 24 hour long process. During this time the sperm cell moves through the area surrounding the egg cell, enters the egg cell, and merges its genetic material with the genetic material in the egg cell.

Completion of this process results in a single-celled zygote with chromosomes from both sperm and egg cells. About 30 hours after fertilization is complete the zygote begins cell division and the number of cells increases.

This is different than fraternal twins from two distinct fertilized egg cells. At nine cells, the cells start arranging themselves into a pattern. At four days after fertilization the organism moves to the uterus, floats for about two days, and then it attaches itself to the uterine wall between the seventh and twelfth day implantation. At the end of the first week the organism is attached to the uterine wall and is being nourished by the mother.

After implantation, cells further differentiate and the embryo is increasingly structured. There is some indication that brain waves can be recorded by about six weeks. At nine weeks the organism is a fetus, the heart is almost fully developed by the tenth week, within a few more weeks the brain is fully formed, and by the fifteenth week the eyes face forward and the ears are on the side of the head. Birth is usually after thirty-nine weeks.

During the process of embryonic and fetal development, the organism is alive, attached to the mother for life support, and increasingly resembling a human baby in appearance. Some thinkers believe that the moral status of the embryo or fetus changes depending on its particular stage of physical development. For those thinkers, before a particular point abortion is morally permissible, while after that point it is impermissible.

But there is disagreement about where that line of demarcation is: viability when it can survive outside the womb , quickening detectable movement within the womb , brain waves occurring, resembling a baby in appearance, etc.

Unfortunately, due to the tremendous acrimony each camp feels toward the other, usually neither side attempts to understand the other.

People hold views about the morality of abortion for various reasons, some political or emotional. But it is possible to depict one or more lines of reasoning each side implicitly relies on when they are thinking and arguing rationally. The basic pro-life position depends on an analogy drawn or assumed between the embryo or fetus and a normal, innocent human being or person. It is believed that the embryo or fetus is relevantly similar to the normal human being or person and so it has the same right to life and should be treated in the same way as any other being with a right to life.

There are two basic lines of reasoning assumed by different pro-choice groups. One line of reasoning sees the embryo or fetus as not a person and so not having the right to life possessed by a person. The other line of reasoning grants that an embryo or fetus might be a person but sees other factors or considerations as outweighing or overriding any right to life of the fetus.

The second argument might be used by pro-lifers who believe that rape, incest, or saving the life of the mother are such overriding factors, but most pro-choicers have in mind others factors such as the following:. There might be debate among pro-choicers over whether the fact that a new child would be a minor inconvenience would be sufficient as a factor to override or outweigh a right to life. The first argument would seem to have an easier time justifying abortion because it could support the view that no particular reason need be given to justify an abortion.

However, some pro-choicers hold that even through an embryo or fetus is not a person and has no right to life, it deserves some sort of moral consideration. Abortion should not be taken lightly.

The embryo or fetus deserves respect. Abortion should not be undertaken for frivolous reasons — such as the potential child not having the preferred eye-color assuming that could be determined. Pro-lifers and pro-choicers can find many places to disagree: the moral status of the embryo or fetus whether it has the right to life , the metaphysical status of the embryo or fetus whether it is a person , and whether moral rights can be overridden and if so what kinds of factors or considerations can override.

One could argue that the first step in rational resolution of the abortion controversy should come from mutual understanding of the various positions. After that would be needed discussion, agreement, and resolution of the many issues involved.

However, there is still strong opposition to the legalisation and decriminalisation of abortion from Catholic moral philosophers and other pro-life advocates. The primary conflict between feminist philosophers and pro-life advocates is the weighing of one set of rights over another if it is accepted that the embryo or fetus have any claim to rights. Pro-life advocates argue the embryo and fetus have potential personhood, which means that if carried to term, the fetus will most likely grow into an adult with full social and political rights.

The woman is already a full grown adult with rights. There are several examples throughout the world where the development of abortion legislation has been underpinned by international commitments to human rights and the rights of women. In exploring these different lenses, the question of morality surrounding abortion appears inconsequential, since political rights and morality are just constructs in order to organise society so that it is predictable and stable. This is reflective of the dominant Christian doctrine of procreation, which has influenced the design of gender roles in social settings.

Ultimately, the embryo and fetus are not human, and do not have a right to life. Even if the embryo or fetus were empirically proven to be human, it would still stand that the rights of the woman trump the claimed rights of the embryo or fetus.

It is the potential of the embryo and fetus to become a being of sentience, self-consciousness and rationality that ordains it with a right to life. Archetypal pro-life arguments assert that human life begins from conception. Fetuses display the physical characteristics of humans and a genetic code that is sufficient for being human. If it is wrong to kill human beings, it is therefore wrong to have an abortion, since fetuses share the same biological attributes as born humans.

What is right and wrong is defined by morality, and the biological attributes of a human or fetus do not make a case for moral obligations surrounding abortion and killing. If this were so, reasoning could be used to claim it is wrong to kill anything that shows biological life. Furthermore, Peter Singer suggests that while pro-life advocates claim human life occurs from the moment of conception, this is problematic because for a period after conception, the embryo can split into twins, therefore suggesting that the moment of conception is a clump of cells rather than a human being.

Don Marquis presents an argument for the immorality of abortion that claims that deliberate abortion is impermissible and is the in the same category as murder or killing an innocent adult person, with the exception of some rare cases. In additional cases, if the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest it is also permissible.

For example, if humans consumed all the fish in the sea, it could be argued that we threatened the future rights of those fetuses to access fish. Martin Rhonheimer suggests that the fetus does not become a person if it was already biologically a human individual. Rather the fetus is a human being that eventually actualises its personhood. However, even if the fetus was proved to have moral value, this does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that abortion should be abolished.

With regard to the abortion debate, there is evidence leading to a collision of rights in our society. Consider the following hypothetical exercise:. Imagine a woman is pregnant with Siamese twins. The doctor says they will die within 6 months after birth unless they are separated when they are born, in which case one twin will live for a full adult life, while the other will die almost immediately.

Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets CSS if you are able to do so. This page has been archived and is no longer updated. Find out more about page archiving. Ethics guide. An introduction to some of the philosophical and ethical questions which surround abortion. On this page Introduction to the abortion debate Page options Print this page.