Abortion: Is it moral and should it be legal?

More than one million induced abortions take place every year in the United States, while the abortion debate drags on year after year.  One out of every three women is likely to have an abortion.  (Focus on the Family) One side argues a fetus is a human person at an earlier stage of development, while another argues it is nothing more than human tissue. Then there is another side that says one simply cannot know either way. Only one side is correct, and this side is the first. Theories of the nature of humanity suggest this answer, as well as the already established laws of the U.S and the common sense of the people.  
Before it can be said that a fetus is human, two things should be discussed what it means for something to be human. Two common theories of human nature are the Materialist Theory and the Dualist Theory. The Materialist Theory argues that humans a purely material substances. To a materialist, there is no immaterial mind or spirit. To a Materialist, humans are simply matter.  Another common view is the Dualist Theory. To a dualist, humans are comprised of both an immaterial mind/spirit which interacts with the material brain.

If materialism is true, then humans are defined by their genetic make-up. A fetus has the same genetic make-up as an adult human, so a fetus is a human under the materialistic theory. If dualism is true, then humans are defined by their genetic make-up and their having a spirit/mind. A fetus has the same genetic make-up and one cannot know if the spirit interacts with it or not.  A fetus has the first characteristic that is needed to classify a fetus as a human being according to a dualistic worldview, human genes. Since science cannot test the fetus to see if it has an immaterial mind,  it cannot be known whether or not the spirit is interacting with the materially human fetus or not. Yet, there is no reason to think otherwise. Most would believe with adamant certainty that a newborn has a soul that interacts with its brain, what makes them think differently of a human at an earlier stage of development?

Even though the spiritual state of a fetus cannot be proven scientifically, a choice must be made regarding the morality and legality of abortion.  It must be assumed that either a fetus has a soul or that is does not have a soul.  What would be the consequences if  a fetus does not have a soul, and the government mistakenly makes abortion illegal. The pro-choice movement would argue that this mistake would deprive a woman from the right to make decisions about her body.  They would argue abortion can save women from financial, emotional, and physical hardships that pregnancy can cause. While it is true that in some cases that pregnancy may cause these hardships, pregnancy was caused by a prior event, which is sexual intercourse. Those who willingly had sex should not blame the hardships of motherhood on their unwanted pregnancy, but rather on the prior cause which, excepting the case of rape, was under their control. They could have made many choices beforehand that could have prevented pregnancy such as abstaining from sex.  In essence, abortion only deprives women of their “right” to sexual freedom. The situations of survivors of rape or other similar trauma are much more complicated, yet still abortion is not justified for following reasons.

On the other hand what are the consequences of  the legal status of abortion continuing as is even if a fetus is really a human. Abortion would deprive the human fetus its right to life. Millions of human souls embodied in a young human bodies would be killed. This is mass-feticide (the act of causing the death of a fetus) and the person should be held legally responsible for their crime regardless of the circumstances regarding their pregnancy.

Obviously what one assumes about the spiritual state of a fetus has major implications. Yet, the consequences of illegalizing abortion are much less severe than allowing the legal state of abortion to continue.

Additionally, common sense would suggest that a fetus does have a spirit. In every other aspect of life similar instances are thought of as immoral and unethical. In the legal system for example, when a man shoots a pregnant woman and kills her and the child in her womb, he is charged with the murder of two individuals according to the Unborn Victims Violence Act.

(a)(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section. (2)(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother... (Title 18, Section 1841 of the United States Code)

In essence, the United States Code attributes the fetus the same right to life as his mother. This law is considered just. Yet, most people think differently about the application of this law to abortion. Even the law itself shows inconsistency in the following paragraphs in which it makes abortion an exception to the rule of feticide.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution— (1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law; (2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or (3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child. (d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

What makes it legal for a mother to kill her unborn child and illegal for someone else to kill her unborn child? The pro-choice movement might argue that this is because the baby is in the mother’s body, so she has the right to determine what happens to it. Yet, the unborn child is not her body. The unborn child is connected to her body and dependent on it. Does dependency and connection to another human being determine humanness? Here is a hypothetical situation to answer that question.  Imagine a case of conjoined twins, Jane and Jill, age eighteen. Besides being conjoined to her sister Jane is a healthy human being. Jill on the other hand has been in a state of coma since birth. Jane’s doctor tells her that in nine months he can surgically separate them both safely.  He is confident that once separated, Jill will recover from her coma and  live a normal life. But Jane wants to surgically remove Jill immediately in a process that involves killing Jill. Why? Because she is tired of the strain Jill is on her body. When the doctor protests Jane reminds him, “This is my body, this is my choice.” Obviously, Jane is in the wrong. While Jill is connected to Jane, Jane does not have the right to make life and death decisions for Jill. In a similar way a human fetus is connected to its mother, but the mother does not have the right to make life and death decisions for the fetus, who like Jill, has a capacity for life. Clearly being connected and dependent on another human being is not enough to deprive the individual of human rights.  

The pro-choice movement might then protest that a parent has more of a right to make life and death decisions for the unborn child than a sister would over her under-developed sister.  If being a parent is all that is required to have authority over the fetus’ life, is the father allowed to make his choice? The fetus has just as many chromosomes from the father as it does from the mother, so the father has just as much of a right to make life and death decisions for the child, correct? Consider this hypothetical situation. Mary is pregnant with Tom’s child. Mary wants to keep the baby, but Tom wants her to abort it. When Mary refuses Tom, without her knowledge,   gives her a pill that will cause her body to miscarry. Tom thinks he is justified in what he is doing because the baby is as much his as it is hers. This is clearly wrong. Why than would it not be frowned upon if the situation was reversed and Mary had an abortion against the wishes of Tom? It is because the beliefs and the laws of the U.S are terribly inconsistent. The truth is there is no good reason why a mother should be allowed to kill a fetus, and though society tries to repress this truth it reveals itself in their reaction to feticide aside from abortion.

    

Determining whether or not a fetus is human has major moral implications. If the humanity of a fetus cannot be determined for certain one still has to make a choice.  Make abortion illegal and possibly limit women’s sexual freedom. Let abortion remain to be legal and risk the mass killing of millions. Depriving a woman of her “rights” over her body and her sexual freedom is not as dangerous a consequences as depriving millions of children their right to live. However, the common sense of individuals seem to suggest that they do believe that a fetus is human, otherwise they would not look so horrifically on fathers who kill their children in the room. Society treats feticide as an immoral act in every circumstance other than abortion. As mentioned, this is very inconsistent because the location of a fetus in the mother’s womb and the dependence it has on the mother is not enough to dehumanize it. Abortion should be an act forbidden by the government and enforced as much as any other crime regarding human rights.

Works Cited

"Social Issues." - Focus on the Family. Web. 20 Mar. 2012. 

 United States. United States House of Representatives. Office of the Law Revision Counsel. United States Code. Web. 19 Mar. 2012.