In this essay, I will argue that abortion is morally permissible in all circumstances. The fundamental issue of when human life begins is one that determines the opinions of whether abortion is morally permissible or not. I will take the standpoint that life does not begin at conception and my arguments will follow this. This essay will further argue that in the case of rape, women’s health, and their consequent reproductive autonomy, abortion must be morally permissible. I will go further and argue that abortion should be morally permissible in the case of consenting, unprotected sex in which a woman understands the risk of pregnancy.
In this paragraph, I will lay out my reasoning as to why life begins at birth and provide objections to the pro-life belief that life begins at conception. The pro-life community believes that life begins at the instant fusion between the sperm and egg. (Clowes, 2017) Clowes notes that embryonic science recognizes that when the sperm fertilizes the egg, this gives rise to a new human being who ‘embarks upon an unbroken continuum of development until natural death’. Using this logic, a pro-lifer may lay out their argument as such:
P1 It is morally impermissible to end human life
P2 Life begins at conception
C It is morally impermissible to abort a fetus
I believe that the second premise of this pro-life argument is flawed. In scientific terms, the human egg is a singular living cell and when fertilized, it successfully becomes a one-cell embryo. No new life is formed – the egg and the sperm were already viable, and fertilization is not instantaneous. (Davis, 2021) Even if I was to accept the position that life begins at conception, I would argue that it is necessary to question the valuation of human life and whether the fetus deserves the same rights as a fully-fledged adult. Sean O’Dowd explains that the fetus must obtain intrinsic value at one of these three stages: conception, viability, and birth. (O'Dowd, n.d.) In the book Causing Death and Saving Lives, Jonathan Glover discusses the problem with these three stages. He applies the fundamental principles of the ‘direct wrongness of killing’ concept to the issue of abortion and concludes that abortion is morally permissible in all circumstances. I agree with the conclusion that an abortion does not violate any of the principles associated with killing and is thus morally permissible. (Glover, 1977) Glover’s argument can be laid out as such:
P1 The ‘direct wrongness of killing’ concept is based on three principles: the reduction of a worthwhile life, violating an autonomous desire to live, and the production of fear or pain
P2 Killing a fetus does not violate any of the principles
C Abortion is morally permissible
These arguments show that the pro-life position that life begins at conception is a weak justification that abortion is morally impermissible in all circumstances. We are not able to determine at which point during the pregnancy the fetus becomes a human being and gains an equal amount of intrinsic value to the mother, and therefore we should conclude that abortion is always morally permissible.
I will now argue that in the case of rape, abortion must always be morally permissible. I will support this argument by referring to Judith Thomson’s violinist analogy:
‘Suppose you are knocked unconscious and, when you awake, you find yourself plugged into a famous violinist. His circulatory system is plugged into yours so that your kidneys can be used to extract the poisons from his blood. The violinist is unconscious and knows nothing of the music lover’s scheme, but if he remains plugged into you for 9 months, he will make a full recovery and you will not be harmed.’ (Thomson, 1971)
Considering the violinist analogy, I conclude that there are two reasons as to why it would be morally permissible to unplug yourself from the violinist.
You were kidnapped and non-consensually put in this position.
You should not be expected to accommodate someone else’s needs for 9 months at the expense of sacrificing your sense of self.
These arguments can also be applied to the case of having an abortion due to rape. When a victim becomes pregnant as a result of rape, it is necessary to allow the woman the choice of abortion because their mental and physical health could be in danger if they were forced to keep the child. The victim should not be expected to sacrifice 9 months of their life for a fetus that is ultimately a stranger to them. The mother and fetus are not two separate entities. The fetus relies on the mother to survive, and I would argue that the fetus’s rights are subordinate to the woman’s bodily autonomy. One of the most pervasive arguments against rape being significant grounds for abortion is the ‘Not the fault of the child’ argument. (Rape and Abortion | EFC, 2021) This argument follows that an abortion would ultimately punish and destroy what would otherwise be a healthy fetus. However, this argument ignores the fact that for the mother, carrying the baby to full term could be so traumatic for her that it could pose a risk to her long-term mental and physical health. Furthermore, in consideration of the child, a child born of rape faces possible discrimination and almost certainly an internal struggle. On the grounds of human rights, the mother should be given the option to abort.
My next supporting argument evaluates why abortion should always be viewed as permissible from the perspective of women’s health and their consequent reproductive autonomy. (Cursino, 2018) In this argument, I will explore the impact of reproductive autonomy on women from marginalized groups in society. Not all women were made to be mothers and as argued by Cecily Jones, ‘The hyper-sexualization and overstressed fecundity of black women is damaging not solely to the women involved but to our society.’ (Jones, 2013) I believe that banning the right to abortion is to further persecute a group that is already systematically oppressed within society. If we ensure that abortion is morally permissible, women from low-income backgrounds and ethnic minorities are given control over their body and their social status. It is important to consider race, class, and culture when debating the ethics of abortion because it enables us to understand the value of reproductive autonomy for marginalized groups. Christine Dehlendorf’s study shows that efforts to restrict abortion do not prevent abortion but only result in more women experiencing later abortions or having unintended childbirth. These are likely to result in worsening health disparities. (Dehlendorf, Harris and Weitz, 2013) I have provided arguments that support the moral permissibility of abortion by considering the wider society and how valuable reproductive autonomy is to women in marginalized groups.
My final argument goes as far as to say that abortion should be morally permissible in the case of consenting, unprotected sex in which the woman understands the risk of pregnancy. In Thomson’s text, she uses the screen analogy to defend abortion. In this analogy, she posits that you leave the window open in your living room because it is stuffy. You understand the risk of leaving the window open but choose to do so anyway because it satisfies your need. A stranger climbs into your room through the window. (Thomson, 1971) I would argue that you have every right to force the stranger to leave because they are intruding, and you do not owe them anything. The same conclusion can be applied to an unwanted fetus. Just like you own the house, a woman owns her body and has the right to decide what she wants to do with it. Another common pro-life argument that could be used to rebut my argument is that if a woman becomes pregnant, she should accept the responsibility that comes with producing a child. (Stephens, 2019) However, I believe that this is a weak argument. It is important to question if giving birth to a child one does not feel equipped to raise is a responsible decision at all. To give birth to a child just to put it into a corrupt care system or to raise the child without love is cruel and an abortion would have ultimately been the better decision.
In conclusion, my essay has argued that abortion is morally permissible in all circumstances. I have pointed to common pro-life arguments and rebutted them with a wide range of circumstances in which I believe abortion to be acceptable. I have touched upon two vastly different circumstances, rape and consensual sex while arguing that if abortion was impermissible, it would further oppress marginalized groups. I have done this whilst upholding my opinion that life does not begin at conception and that a mother’s intrinsic value is significantly higher than that of a fetus.
Bibliography
Clowes, B., 2017. Human Conception: When Does Life Begin? [online] Human Life International. Available at: