Autonomy, Viability, and Moral Perspectives and Abortion Rights

In America, abortion is a hot topic in many women’s daily lives. Ever since the Roe vs. Wade decision, protests against abortion have been common. Those who oppose it are called “pro-life” supporters. Even though it’s a sensitive issue, the debate pops up everywhere. You see it on the news, in newspapers, and even in Congress. Abortion is a big discussion that needs attention. I believe women should have free and unlimited access to abortion as long as the fetus depends on the mother to survive. But many people disagree with this. These arguments often come from moderates and conservatives. In this essay, I’ll dive into the fight for and against abortions.

Argument:

The right to control one’s body is a big deal in America’s constitutional laws and rights. But when it comes to abortion, this right is often challenged by those who disagree with it. Taking away a woman’s right to choose what happens to her body would make her less of a person under the law. Men can make choices about their bodies without restrictions, so women would be at a disadvantage. Not allowing women to choose whether to have an abortion would be like going back in time. Controlling someone’s decisions about their own body is like turning back the clock to before women had equal rights, which was officially recognized with the 19th Amendment. Everyone in America should have freedom over their own body, which was reinforced by the Roe vs. Wade case, making abortion legal across the country and giving women full freedom over their own bodies.

But this idea is starting to change. Those who try to stop women from getting abortions infringe on the basic right to control their own bodies. That’s why I argue that abortions should be allowed as long as the fetus needs the mother to survive. If the baby can’t survive without the mother, it’s part of her body. The fetus’s dependence on the mother is the key here. If the fetus is growing because the mother provides nutrients, then it’s part of her body. So, until the fetus can survive on its own, the mother has the final say over its life. According to Embryologist Judis Venuti, a baby is fully developed at 39 weeks. So, abortions should be allowed up to this point to respect a woman’s right to choose.

Philosophy:

My argument for abortion is backed by many philosophers, including Kant. Kant’s Ethical theory is often referenced when discussing the morality of actions. According to Lewis Vaughn, the author of Doing Ethics, Kantian ethics rely on reason and logic to determine if actions are morally right. Kant’s idea of moral law comes from the categorical imperative, which says you should act only in ways that you’d want to become universal law. If an action can apply to everyone without disadvantaging anyone, then it’s “permissible.” Consistency is important to figure out if something is morally right. If an action can’t be universally applied, it’s not morally correct.

This idea of the categorical imperative fits with my view on abortion. Consistency is crucial in keeping abortions legal. If people oppose abortions to protect unborn life, it’s inconsistent and thus immoral. If the law forces a woman to carry her fetus full term, it protects the fetus’s life but not the mother’s. She would have to carry the baby to term, even if it affects her life quality. Not allowing abortions would protect the fetus but not the mother, which is inconsistent and immoral, proving why abortions are moral.

Kant’s second version of the categorical imperative is the means-to-an-end principle. Kant says humans are special because they can think rationally and have free will. Because of this, humans should treat each other with respect. We shouldn’t use people just to get what we want. Using others is disrespectful and immoral. Respecting human autonomy is a big part of Kant’s Ethical theories about what is moral.

Kant’s second version also supports my views on abortion, protecting the mother’s autonomy. Critics of abortion who want mothers to carry babies full term infringe on the mother’s autonomy. Not allowing mothers to decide what happens to their bodies is manipulation. Laws stopping mothers from having abortions manipulate their free will. This is seen in Ohio’s “Heartbeat Bill,” where mothers can’t get abortions after 20 weeks. An article by the New York Times shows how the government manipulates a mother’s free will by limiting when she can have an abortion. The government uses mothers wanting an abortion “merely as a means” to protect conservative beliefs, manipulating women’s freedom of choice. Forcing mothers to carry a baby full term against their will is immoral. If choosing an abortion is her choice, others should respect it because she’s a human being too.

Counter Arguments: The Liberal take on Abortion

Some might see my take on abortion as moderate, but there are many who object to it for different reasons. The liberal perspective is a big critic of my argument. According to Lewis Vaughn, liberals believe a fetus isn’t human until after birth. They think a fetus is part of the mother’s body, so mothers should be able to abort their fetuses up to birth. In Vaughn’s book Doing Ethics, liberals agree killing an innocent person is wrong. But they don’t see the fetus as a person, making abortion okay at any point. Liberals follow Mary Ann Warren’s criteria for personhood, which includes consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, communication, and self-awareness. Since a fetus doesn’t meet these criteria, liberals argue it’s not human, making abortion permissible because it’s not murder.

While these points are valid, there are holes in this liberal argument. Their criteria for personhood are inconsistent. For example, they say you need the ability to communicate to be a person. But what about severely disabled people who can’t communicate? Do we discount their personhood and allow them to be killed? No, they’re still human. Following their argument would mean liberals support killing severely disabled people, which is inhumane and contradicts their belief that killing innocent people is wrong. A disabled person’s inability to communicate doesn’t disqualify their personhood, just as a fetus’s inability to speak shouldn’t either. So, their criteria for personhood are hypocritical. If it’s wrong to kill disabled people for not communicating, it’s wrong to kill a fetus at any point during pregnancy.

It makes more sense to determine when a fetus becomes human during pregnancy. Going back to my argument on viability, this is around 39 weeks. At this point, fetuses are fully developed, just putting on weight, according to embryologist Judis Venuti. Since they’re fully grown with all the physical and chemical aspects of a person, the fetus is a person at this point. So, using viability at 39 weeks is a better way to decide when abortion is appropriate and when it’s murder.

Counter Argument: The Problem of “Potential” Life

Another popular argument against abortion is the issue of “potential” life. Arizona State University’s philosophy professor Bertha A. Manninen explains this in her article “Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine.” She argues abortion is immoral because the fetus has the potential to be a human. As a potential human, the fetus should be respected and given the right to live.

Manninen says, “potency... the power it [actually] possesses in virtue of its specific constitution' to grow into a being of a certain sort. That is, X is a potential Y if X possesses the power to become Y; that X will become Y, if it lives long enough.” She means that if a fetus is given the chance to live long enough, it will become a person. It’s a fact of life, not just a possibility. For example, a caterpillar will become a butterfly if it’s allowed to grow. So, the fetus deserves rights as a person, and abortions shouldn’t be allowed because they take away a human life, making abortion a type of murder.

But Manninen’s argument has issues. She equates fetuses and grown adults as having equal rights, which is problematic. Not even newborn babies have the same rights as adults. Philosopher Ronald Munson discusses this in his argument Intervention and Reflection: Basic Issues in Medical Ethics. Munson says just because an entity has the “potential” to be something doesn’t mean it has equal rights to what it will become. He gives an example of a child born in America. This child is a “potential” voter but isn’t treated as a voter until they turn 18. So, just because a fetus has the potential to be human doesn’t give it human rights. Fetuses aren’t the same as grown people and shouldn’t have full moral status.

This also applies to sperm and eggs. Following Manninen’s argument, sperm could potentially become a baby and should be treated with human rights. This would mean contraception is murder, which is an unreasonable belief. This shows how flawed the potential life theory is. So, the defense that abortions should never be allowed because of potential life doesn’t hold up.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the choice to have or not have an abortion is tough. According to the Washington Post, almost half of pregnancies in the U.S. are unplanned. This puts many women in difficult situations. Unplanned pregnancies force mothers to make hard choices about their fetus. Whether a woman decides to keep the baby or not, she should have the right to make that choice. This fundamental right over her body is something many want to take away. Having full autonomy over one’s body is a right granted to every human. An unplanned pregnancy shouldn’t take away a woman’s freedom of choice. If the fetus hasn’t reached viability (39 weeks), mothers should have the right to decide their pregnancy’s outcome. After all, her body belongs to her. Saying a fetus’s life is worth more than the lives of half of American women would be a huge blow to women’s rights. I support abortion rights to support women’s rights everywhere.