Research Paper on Abortion - the Integrated Biological Timeline

Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy before the fetus is capable of independent life. There are many perspectives on abortion. The main perspectives are pro-life and pro-choice, yet the medical and legal communities also have their own perspectives too. In this research paper, I will show and respond to the pro-life and pro-choice perspectives, and then advance the topic of abortion by integrating the various perspectives on a biological timeline.

The pro-life view is characterized by “all men are created equal.”1 My personal view is that equal rights should be available to everyone regardless of sex, race, preference, age, etc. Throughout history their have been many conflicts of significance to women and blacks concerning the fight for equal rights; pro-life supporters say “why not babies too?”2 They also believe “there are no sub-humans.”3 Personally, I agree that there are no sub-humans. There are humans and not humans. I do not believe fetuses in a vegetative state, similar to a piece of tissue, are not humans because they are not conscious. Just because something has the potential of becoming a human in the future does not make it a human now.

Pro-choice enthusiasts also believe “babies feel pain in the womb.”4 Yes, babies do feel pain in the womb after they become conscious. Fetuses are not considered babies until they are conscious. This looks to me like they are making over generalized universal statements that only apply to existential situations, which is invalid and therefore an unsound argument. Although I do agree with them from an emotional perspective, I think other pro-choice individuals would also agree that harming babies who feel pain is morally wrong. I think the real question that integrates the two perspectives is when does a baby actually occur?

Some pro-life enthusiasts believe “babies are not sub-humans simply because they are less developed”5 and “aborting babies is morally wrong.”6 However, fetuses are not babies until they are conscious. They also argue, "Most 18 year olds are not fully developed"7 and ask whether that makes them "sub-human."8 I believe the term sub-human is a fictitious construct of the pro-life perspective to gain an emotional advantage in debates. Should we consider a living piece of skin cut from our body a sub-human, of course not, then why make the same comparison with a growing piece of flesh that is not yet an independent, conscious living being.

Their next argument is that “babies are living humans in the womb”9 and “killing humans is murder;”10 therefore, “abortion is murder.”11 However, in modern medicine, abortion involves terminating a pregnancy before the fetus is capable of independent life. This occurs before fetuses become conscious babies. This means that very few babies are legally killed today since partial birth abortions became illegal in 2003, and doctors are unwilling to perform an abortion once the fetus is conscious (after eighteen weeks). Therefore, abortions before eighteen weeks are not murder, and the actual number of nationwide abortions after eighteen weeks is only a small percentage of the former one million thought to occur.

They also mentioned, “Adoption is an option that does not require putting a pair of scissors into the back of a babies head and them vacuuming them out.”12 This is the clear use of emotional language to influence the reader; this procedure, called partial birth, is now illegal. It involves mothers partially giving birth to the baby in order to kill it. Therefore, this would exclude mothers who would want to avoid having a baby due to health risks. They also say, “If you are willing to have sex, then you should take the responsibility to at least deliver the baby.”13 I agree in most cases, yet this statement does not take into account that it may be hazardous to the women’s health to have a baby, accidental conceptions do happen frequently, and it is not a baby until it is conscious. This is just another example of making universal statements that only apply to existential situations.

According to the pro-life perspective, “there are approximately 1 million abortions every year.”14 However, this is no longer the case since partial birth abortions are now illegal. I think this perspective lacks accurate and complete information on the topic and is more emotional than logical in nature.

In contrast, the pro-choice view believes “a fetus is not a human being until it becomes conscious.”15 From conception to eighteen weeks, the fetus is in a vegetative state, and "is not a moral patient since it does not have self-consciousness.”16 Therefore, abortion can be justified. There are two main types of abortions; one type is spontaneous, and the other is induced. If the fetus weighs less than 18oz or is less than 20 weeks into the pregnancy, it is usually considered a spontaneous abortion. Spontaneous abortions are also known as miscarriages. They usually occur during the first three months of pregnancy. It is estimated that “25% of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion.”17 This measn that miscarriages are very common naturally.

The second form of abortion is induced abortion. This is the deliberate termination of the fetus. There are five methods to induce abortions. The first type is called vacuum aspiration and is available between two and twelve weeks. This procedure involves attaching a tube to a vacuum, and inserting it into the uterus to suck out the embryo.

Saline Infusion, available between fifteen and twenty-five, is where doctors replace some embryonic fluid with a salt solution causing the uterus to contract and expelling the fetus.

Hysterotomy, available between two and seven weeks is similar to a Cesarean Section except the cut is smaller and lower.

RU-486, available between two to seven weeks, is known as the morning after pill; it was developed in France, and approved for sale there in 1988. Clinical trials in the United States began in 1994.

Partial Birth, formally available between thirteen and thirty-six weeks became illegal in 2003, involved partially giving birth and then pushing a pair of scissors into the back of a babies head. Many Pro-Choice and Pro-Life supporters were outraged about the barbaric killing of living conscious babies which resulted in President Bush outlawing the procedure in 2003.

In addition, the Supreme Court case Roe vs. Wade set the six-month rule in 1973 under Justice Blackman. The Supreme Court ruled that they could not ban abortions in the first six months of the pregnancy. After six months, individual states can ban an abortion except in cases in which the woman's health is at risk. I think this determination gave women six months, which is ample time for women to discover they are pregnant and decide whether it is safe for them to give birth to a baby under the advice of a physician.

In addition, mothers who have abortions may put themselves at risk of infertility, depression, or even death. Abortions are also a very painful procedure, especially in late pregnancy; so I believe a women’s right to make a decision that carry's significant personal consequences should be respected as long as it does not violate the law. Since the medical community and the law does not advocate the killing of conscious babies. The gap between 18 weeks and 6 months may be a bit wide, but it gives doctors some discretion in extreme cases without making it illegal.

Some consequences of an abortion include Post Abortion Syndrome, which causes depression and may even influence a mother to resort to suicide. Infertility can also happen if the doctor slips and cuts part of the uterus or the fallopian tubes. Even potential death can happen due to internal bleeding, when the doctor cuts part of the uterus or the fallopian tubes.

Therefore, the health and well-being of the mother is also an important factor; we must consider abortion as a possible solution when it is potentially harmful for the mother to have a baby.

I think the statements by the authors who advocated pro-choice as their perspective used a descriptive rather than a prescriptive approach. This means that I was required to respond to facts rather than lots of opinions and personal bias. This made a much stronger argument for the pro-choice perspective. Therefore, I decided that giving pregnant women the opportunity to abort a vegetative piece of tissue was the right decision. After all, I think the law, the church, and other organizations have no rights over women’s bodies and any vegetative tissues inside them.

Next, let us discuss an integrated biological timeline. The law says that abortions are legal from conception to six months. After six months, induced abortions are illegal, except when a women’s health is at risk. The medical associations allow physicians to provide induced abortions from two weeks to twenty-four weeks. After twenty-four weeks, no induced abortions are available because the medical community views abortions of babies who are capable of independent life as murder. Since an abortion is the termination of a pregnancy before the fetus is capable of independent life, the possibility of independent life does not occur before the brain is conscious. Therefore, an abortion is medically impossible before eighteen to twenty weeks, because the baby is not yet conscious or capable of independent life.

Moreover, most doctors absolutely refuse to conduct abortions after eighteen weeks, because it is possible that the fetus is conscious. This means that even though abortions are legal between eighteen and twenty-four weeks, most doctors refuse to perform the procedure. I think an additional reason is that doctors believe the mother has sufficient time to seek a physician’s counsel and terminate the pregnancy before eighteen weeks.

The pro-choice prospective reinforces that “from zero to four and a half months abortions are moral, because the fetus is not conscious.”18
They also bring up that from conception to three months, 25% of pregnancies end in miscarriage naturally. This is when the fetus is still in a vegetative, tissue-like state. The Pro-Life Prospective varies widely. Some pro-life supporters believe a baby happens the moment a sperm enters an egg. Others believe a baby occurs the moment the egg is implanted. Still others believe a baby occurs when the fertilized egg reproduces cells and looks like a soccer ball. The list of when a baby actually occurs goes on and on, and seems to vary widely based on education and religious background. Some people even believe god is the sole culprit in their pregnancy and the combination of human sperm and eggs has nothing to do with conception. This is because they believe god gave the fetus a soul at that moment, and otherwise the baby would be stillborn. I even looked into the origins of the word soul; to my surprise, it comes from ancient Greek (Indo-European), and literally means the conscious mind. I think people should investigate both sides thoroughly before making value judgments or simply adopting someone else’s perspective as their own. However, in the case where pro-life supporters believe a baby occurs when a fetus becomes conscious at eighteen to twenty weeks, they are completely in agreement with people who share the pro-choice prospective.
I think calling a piece of tissue in a vegetative state a baby would also require us to acknowledge the rights of skin grafts and other forms of living tissue that have no viability outside the body. We could even take this issue to the extreme and start charging people with murder for kicking men or women in the gonads! We could even give rights to bacteria and convict people of genocide for taking showers! Of course, this is ridiculous. However, worrying about the potential lives of what would have, could have, or should have been is equally ridiculous when those things are not conscious beings.

I think we should protect conscious human babies in the womb. This opinion stems from women having plenty of time to terminate their pregnancy before the six-month deadline. Although each situation is unique, in many cases the baby would be more viable than the pregnant mother who wants to abort it for personal health reasons. Since both perspectives believe killing a baby (human) is immoral, the real decision is when a baby (human) actually occurs. Both the pro-life supporters and pro-choice supporters believe killing a conscious baby in the womb (capable of independent life) is immoral. In addition, it is statistically unlikely for a baby to occur before eighteen weeks and most fetuses become conscious babies between eighteen and twenty weeks.

Therefore, if we can compromise that babies only occur after eighteen to twenty weeks, then both perspectives agree about not conducting abortions on conscious babies (humans). Moreover, physicians will not allow abortions on conscious babies, so there is no longer a reason to debate either prospective - unless the physician is an outlier in the medical community and agrees to conduct illegal abortions.

Bibliography
Alcorn, Randy. Pro Life Answers to Pro Choice Arguments. Portland, Oregon: Multnomah Books, 1994

Almond, P. Introducing Applied Ethics. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing, 1995

Carton, Jean. Who Broke The Baby? Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1997

Crutcher, Mark. Lime 5. Denton, Texas: Life Dynamics, 1996

Smart, J.J.C & Williams, B. Utilitarianism: For and Against Cambridge. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 1973

Sterba, J.P. Ethics: The Big Questions. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing, 1998