Ethical Abortions

Abortion is an extremely morally contentious issue. There are estimates that a quarter to a third of Gen-Z has been aborted. The vast majority of abortions are for elective reasons.

My own views on abortion rights have changed over the years. I used to be very supportive of abortion, probably due to the views of the people around me. Then I became very opposed to abortion in almost every circumstance except when it was necessary to save the mother's life.

I still maintain that the action of abortion is undesirable. If someone asked for my personal advice, I would strongly encourage them to continue their pregnancy if they were able to do so. However, I also believe there are circumstances in which abortion should be legally and ethically permissible. This article explains why.

Firstly I would like to lay out my assumptions. I believe that a new human life begins at conception. I believe conception onward there exists a biologically distinct human organism with its own rights. I know that many people reject this premise, though I do not think agreement on this point is necessary to engage with the rest of my argument. I also think it is somewhat inconsistent to consent to sex without acknowledging that every act of sexual intercourse, even when using the most effective contraceptives, carries some risk of pregnancy. While pregnancy may not be intended, I think there remains an element of responsibility that should be recognised when engaging in an activity that inherently carries that risk.

I used to be strictly anti-abortion, barring cases of saving the mother's life. However I formed my current opinion on abortion after reading about Judith Jarvis Thompson's A Defense of Abortion, specifically, her violinist analogy. She writes:
"You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but in nine months] he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion)

Thompson argues that you would have the right to disconnect yourself, even knowing that the violinist would die. This shows that even if the foetus is considered a person with a right to life, that right does not automatically include the right to use another person's body without ongoing consent.

I find this persuasive.

Obviously her analogy is reflective of cases of rape, since you are kidnapped and forced to be connected to the violinist. However, through her line of argument, I believe that even if someone had voluntarily connected themselves to the violinist, they should still retain the right to disconnect later at any point during the nine months. Consent to the use of one's body should remain revocable. In consistent fashion, contemporary laws do not dictate that parental responsibilities extend so far as to require the involuntary use of one's own body to sustain another person's life. For example, if a child needs an organ donation, and a parent was a match, the parent is not legally obliged to be the donor.

However I do not believe that this is a perfect analogy to abortion. Say the violinist was unplugged, doctors will still try their hardest to save the violinist even if chances are exceedingly narrow. The person's decision is simply to withdraw the use of their own body and not to actively kill the violinist. By contrast, many abortion procedures actively cause the death of the foetus before or during its removal. I think there is a clear moral difference. I think that for example, surgical abortions is more akin to ripping the violinist into pieces rather than simply unplugging oneself. I don't believe that, in the thought experiment, murdering the violinist and inducing bodily harm onto him is the same as unplugging oneself from him even if both scenario ultimately results in his death.

This leads me to what I would describe as an ethical framework for abortion. It attempts to reconcile two rights that I consider important:
- A woman has the right to withdraw the use of her body.
- A foetus has right to life.
Thus I conclude that if a woman chooses to end her pregnancy, I believe she should have the right to "unplug" herself from the foetus. However, if medically possible, the foetus should be removed in a way in that does not cause it bodily harm, such as an early delivery or c-section. Then it should be immediately placed into NICU and receive the same level of care as any other premature baby. Every reasonable effort should be made to try to preserve its life. The only exception is in the case where the abortion’s aim is to save the woman’s life. I believe in that case, if the death of the foetus is inevitable, it should be permitted.

Currently this viewpoint is really a unnecessary hurdle because we do not have the technology to reliably ensure foetuses live before 20 weeks of gestation, so either way it will end in the foetus dying. The most premature baby which survived was born after 21 weeks of gestation, so I would advocate for any abortions after 20 weeks to be carried out in a way which does not harm the foetus. (Although I still maintain there is a moral difference between say, a 10 week old foetus dying outside the womb after it has been removed compared to it being killed in order to be removed, practically it is a waste to make abortion procedures more complicated.) Perhaps in the future, with more medical advancements in NICUs or artificial wombs this framework would become much more practically relevant. It would allow us to fully respect bodily autonomy while also making every effort to preserve the life of the foetus whenever possible.

Overall, I do not believe anyone should be compelled to use their body against their will, even to sustain another human being. At the same time, I do not believe the withdrawal of bodily support necessarily justifies intentionally ending the life of the dependent individual when less harmful alternatives exist. Today, technology often prevents us from practically honouring both rights simultaneously. In the future, however, if we can reach a point where ending a pregnancy no longer requires intentionally ending a human life, then I believe that is the ethical direction in which abortion policy should evolve.

Image source: https://www.wannapik.com/vectors/68306