Abortion: An Everlasting Debate

In the 1973 ruling of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruled women had the right to abortions until the fetus was viable. Consequently, in present days, late term abortions are a source of controversy; however, regardless of the trimester, abortion itself remains an ethical debate. Abortion opponents claim abortion is the murder of an innocent baby, while pro-life advocates argue it is a woman’s right. Along the same lines, abortion opponents argue fetuses have human rights. While abortion is a medical procedure, it has psychological and philosophical consequences. Nevertheless, abortion is an ethical procedure because it is legal and represents a woman’s rational and individual choice. 

According to the book Ethics: A Pluralistic Approach to Moral Theory, we define ethical pluralism as the principles of understanding, tolerance, standing up against evil, and fallibility (Hinmin 27-8). In other words, it is a moral philosophy because we consider others’ perspectives. While there is no specific law that dictates it is a woman’s right to do what she wants with her body, it is s conscious individual decision we must tolerate. Moreover, at times it is a medical decision based on a woman’s physical and emotional health. 

Utilitarian philosophers would probably suggest a woman’s emotional health included her happiness. Famous Utilitarian philosophers such as Aristotle and John Stuart Mill argue that human beings have the right to happiness. On the other hand, it only considers the potential mother and the fetus. Philosophically speaking, one achieves happiness when he or she considers the society as a whole; however, if the woman is not happy, she may negatively affect those around her. Thus, in a way, she extends her decision’s consequences to those around her, so, at the same time, opponents argue that her decision also affects the physician. 

Abortion opponents claim it is against a physician’s Hippocratic Oath, but times have drastically changed. One may argue that abortion is a legitimate procedure because it is performed by doctors; however, some doctors feel uncomfortable with the process. Anand Kumar, author of “Hippocratic Oath, 21st Century” suggests Hippocrates was unable to foresee “current modern clinical practice and technology, [so] the once revered Hippocratic Oath is being increasingly seen as hindrances…and most doctors do not find it inspirational” (172). In other words, Hippocrates did not have to contend with abortion advocates and opponents. If ancient women aborted their babies, it was probably without a physician’s aid. In addition, women had essentially no rights. Children were meant to populate communities, and if a woman aborted her child, many believed that the community would suffer. On the other hand, the Oath dictates that doctors must promise they will “give no deadly medicine to any one if asked nor suggest any such counsel and will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion” (172). As an aside, while the Oath specifically mentions abortion, it does not include the death penalty. Because we presently use lethal injection, ancient physicians would argue we were immoral. In fact, some members of our society may deem the death penalty immoral too. However, our life progressed to include women’s rights and non-violent capital punishment. Therefore, we must consider the long-run when deciding what is ethical.

In his 1999 speech The Perils of Indifference, Elie Wiesel claims the new millennium will bring new consequences. Specifically, Wiesel suggests that regardless of our actions, we will be “judged severely, in both moral and metaphysical terms.” However, what tends to hurt humans the most is their tendency to lean towards indifference. The older generation claims that the younger generation is apathetic, but indifference suggests one has the unwavering knowledge that life, thus rules, will change. On the other hand, old beliefs remain steady. 

In his essay “Taking Life: The Embryo and the Fetus,” Peter Singer explains there is the conservative debate and the liberal debate. On one hand, the conservative argument declares: “It is wrong to kill an innocent human being; A human fetus is an innocent human being; Therefore, it is wrong to kill a human fetus” (Singer 146). If one were to use logic alone, this would be a valid argument; however, we have not been able to prove when a fetus becomes aware. Roe v. Wade questioned a fetus’s viability as well, and the question remains. In actuality, we do not have any credible scientific evidence that proves one side or another. Subsequently, Singer asserts “In a pluralistic society, we should tolerate others with different moral views and leave the decision to have an abortion up to the woman concerned” (152). In other words, we must accept what we cannot control and realize we are individuals with different perceptions. After all, the abortion only directly affects the mother. Essentially, we have no right to judge anyone other than ourselves. In addition, Singer suggests that “we accord the life of a fetus no greater value than the life of a nonhuman animal at a similar level of rationality” (156). While his statement would have abortion opponents in a rage, we must consider what we do know. We only know of the mother’s rationality. It is far too subjective to try and imagine we know what a fetus feels or does not feel. 

In sum, we need to practice tolerance because we all welcome our individuality. If we all had the same emotions, we would no longer be unique. While our distinct quirks have no bearing in whether or not abortion is ethical, we do value human rationality. Therefore, we have to respect a woman’s decision to have an abortion because she believes it to be a rational decision. 

Works Cited

Hinman, Lawrence M. "Understanding the Diversity of Moral Beliefs." Ethics: A Pluralistic Approach to Moral Theory. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth, 2011. 24-53. 

Kumar, Anand. "Hippocratic Oath, 21St Century." Indian Journal of Surgery 72.2 (2010): 171-175. Academic Search Premier. 

"Roe V. Wade." Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6Th Edition (2013): 1. Literary Reference Center. 

Singer, Peter. "Taking Life: The Embryo and the Fetus." Writings on an Ethical Life. New York: Ecco, 2000. 146-64. 

Wiesel, Elie. "The Perils of Indifference." Speech. White House, Washington, D.C. American Rhetoric Top 100 Speeches. AmericanRhetoric.com. http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ewieselperilsofindifference.html