Pro-choice abortion debate

Pro-choice Presentation Brief

Imagine a scenario where a woman's life is in danger due to a complicated pregnancy. Should she be forced to carry the child to term, even if it means risking her own life? Is the right to life of the fetus more important than her right to life or her right to choose? This is one of many examples of the casuistry behind this highly nuanced, complicated topic. As such, failing to consider the factor of casuistry in any ethical analysis of abortion means failing to address what happens in the real world. Given that abortion happens in the real world, this is pseudo-ethics. Ethics that are made up without evidence or examples from the real world are not real ethics, just like pseudoscience. Therefore, seeing as most, if not all, opponents of abortion rely so heavily and uncritically (Thompson) on arguments that blatantly ignore casuistry, they cannot be accurate and cannot be ethically applied to the real world. This is why most, if not all, ethical arguments made by anti-abortionists are too simplistic to be ethically applied in the real world, where many factors are at play. If casuistry fails to be considered, basic ethical principles like the right to autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice are overlooked. This is why defending abortion is the most ethically defensible position. 

Anti-abortionists frequently reject casuistry and only rely on the ethical principles of nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice because they believe these standards provide a distinct and objective moral standard for the morality of abortion. They argue that the sanctity of life is a fundamental principle that cannot be compromised because everyone has an innate right to life. Even in situations where the mother's life is in danger, the fetus has severe abnormalities, or the pregnancy was the result of rape, this is true. Anti-abortionists are able to completely disregard casuistry by making the assumption that the fetus is a person. According to this viewpoint, since the fetus has the same rights as other people, it is impossible to intentionally harm it without going against the principle of nonmaleficence. The principle of beneficence is another argument used by those who oppose abortion. It is morally right to ensure and promote the wellbeing of the fetus because it is a living being with significant future potential (Marquis 191). From this point of view, it would be against the beneficence principle not to do so. Finally, pro-lifers invoke the justice principle, which calls for treating everyone equally. The logical conclusion is that if a fetus is a person, then they have the same right to fair treatment as everyone else and therefore are entitled to a right to life. This approach is reflective of a genuine commitment to what pro-lifers believe to be objectively moral. Unfortunately, this approach overlooks the complexities and nuances of the issue of abortion at large.

Casuistry is a type of ethical reasoning that looks at the specifics of each case and takes into account the complexities and subtleties of previous unique circumstances. Seeing as abortion happens in the real world, it follows that consideration of the casuistry surrounding the issue of abortion is necessary. In his paper on the immorality of abortion, Marquis states that he “…will not delve into the complexities of these difficult cases” (Marquis 183). In the last sentence of his paper, he states that, “…the problem of the ethics of abortion, so understood, is solvable” (Marquis 202). Issues begin to arise with Marquis’s ethical claims, considering he deliberately ignores casuistry when formulating his arguments. When narrowing the scope of factors to be considered in ethical decision-making for complex issues such as abortion, ethical considerations become simpler and more binary. Therefore, the issue, as so understood, is not solvable upon consideration of casuistry. The result of this oversimplification is that it fails to accurately represent the complexity of the issue of abortion in the real world. 

For example, thinking about how a fetus grows and develops gives us a nuanced and ontologically sound ethical perspective that shows how complicated the issue is. Failure to consider the case of fetal development results in simplistic, ontologically flawed ethical principles that are not representative of the real world. In the only instance of the discussion of extreme cases related to abortion, Marquis writes that, “Certain situations, such as abortion before implantation, abortion when a woman’s life is in danger due to pregnancy, or abortion after rape, may be deemed morally acceptable by some anti-abortionists” (Marquis 183). This shows how many anti-abortion arguments are wrong on a fundamental ontological level. It also shows how important case studies are when analyzing ethical dilemmas like abortion. Thompson, in her paper defending abortion, addresses this ontological flaw, stating that, “We are asked to notice that the development of a human being from conception through birth into childhood is continuous; then it is said that to draw a line, to choose a point in this development, and say "before this point the thing is not a person, after this point it is a person" is to make an arbitrary choice, a choice for which in the nature of things no good reason can be given” (Thompson 47). It does not follow that an ethical decision should be made based on an arbitrary choice, as the choice is not rooted in any ethical principle. 

With relation to that, it may be claimed that the fetus is physiologically separate from the mother and possesses a unique genetic code of its own. This indicates that the fetus is a distinct organism with its own existence and potential, rather than just a component of the mother's body. Second, it might be claimed that the bodily autonomy defense is weak because it fails to take into account the fact that the woman's decisions have already resulted in the development of the fetus. The woman's right to bodily autonomy does not extend to the right to harm or kill another human being. Even if we grant that the fetus has a right to life, we must weigh this right against the woman's right to bodily autonomy and self-defense because it is not absolute or complete without the woman. Women should thus have the freedom to decide whether or not to undergo an abortion.

One of the key arguments that supports this stance is the bodily autonomy argument put forth by Judith Jarvis Thomson in "A Defense of Abortion." Thomson argues that even if we assume that a fetus is a person with a right to life, that right does not extend to the right to use someone else's body without their consent—especially when that right enforces harm against women. Just as it would be wrong to force someone to donate their organs to another person, it is wrong to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will. Also, it's important to know that a fetus is not conscious or aware of itself until later in pregnancy. Without consciousness or self-awareness, the fetus cannot be considered a person with rights. Also, since the fetus depends on the woman's body for survival, it is not a separate person with its own rights. The woman has the right to decide whether or not to continue the pregnancy, and this decision should not be based on the rights of the fetus. In conclusion, the fetus is not a person and does not have rights. The woman has the right to control her own body and make decisions about her own health and well-being. Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will is a violation of her bodily autonomy and should not be justified by the nonexistent rights of the fetus. 

The right to autonomy is a central tenet of ethical decision-making, especially when it comes to medical decisions. In the case of a complicated pregnancy, where a woman's life is at risk, the right to autonomy should be paramount. This means that she should be able to make an informed decision about the risks and benefits of continuing the pregnancy without feeling judged. In this case, abortion may be the only way to protect the woman's life, and to deny her the right to choose could be a violation of her autonomy. The right to autonomy is an integral part of ethical decision-making because it ensures that individuals are able to make choices that are in line with their own values and beliefs. This is especially true for medical decisions, where individuals should be allowed to make decisions that are best for their own health and wellbeing. In the case of a complicated pregnancy, where a woman's life is at risk, the right to autonomy should be especially respected. This means that the woman should not feel pressured or judged when she thinks about the risks and benefits of keeping the pregnancy. In this case, abortion may be the only way to protect the woman's life, and to deny her the right to choose could be a violation of her autonomy. This is why it is so important to respect the woman's right to choose in these cases, as denying her that right could have serious physical, psychological, and financial consequences, and in some cases, could even result in death. This is why defending abortion is the most ethically defensible position, as it respects the woman's right to autonomy and allows her to make the best decision for her own health and wellbeing.

The main argument against pro-choice is that the fetus has a right to life that is more important than the woman's right to decide for herself. This argument is based on the idea that life begins at conception and that the unborn child is a human with rights that should be respected. Proponents of this argument argue that no matter the circumstances, abortion should be prohibited in order to protect the right to life of the fetus. They believe that abortion is wrong in all cases and that it is a violation of the right to life of the unborn child. However, this argument fails to recognize the complexity of the situation and the potential consequences of denying the woman her right to autonomy. Denying the woman's right to autonomy can have serious physical, psychological, and financial consequences, and in some cases, could even result in death. Abortion is not the only way to protect the right to life of the fetus, and that in many cases, the best way to do so is to allow the woman to make an informed decision that best protects her own life. This is why it is important to consider all factors before making a decision, and to respect the woman's right to autonomy.

            Given the gravity of the potential ethical consequences and implications that terminating a pregnancy entails, it is important to consider all factors in any ethical analysis of the issue. Failure to do so results in ethical claims that are a misrepresentation of reality and fails to account for the many valid cases in which abortion may be permissible or necessary. Anti-abortionists often rely on ethical principles of nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice, which are based on the assumption that the fetus is a person with the same rights as everyone else. Unfortunately, this approach overlooks many of the complexities of the issue of abortion at large. This results in fundamental ontological shortcomings with regards to the case of continuous fetal development, the mother’s right to autonomy, and the right to her own life. This is why defending abortion is the most ethically defensible position because it considers the case-by-case nature of abortion and recognizes the importance of the mother’s autonomy and wellbeing. It is necessary to consider the factor of casuistry when evaluating the ethics of abortion, to ensure a more accurate and nuanced representation of the issue in the real world.

Works Cited

Thomson, Judith Jarvis. “A Defense of Abortion.” Philosophy & Public Affairs, vol. 1,  

no. 1, Wiley, Dec. 1970, philpapers.org/rec/THOADO-2.

Marquis, Don. “Why Abortion Is Immoral.” The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 86, no. 4, 

Philosophy Documentation Center, Mar. 1989, pp. 183–202.

Rebuttals

How can the fetus be considered equivalent to a fully developed person without causing issues pertaining to right to life? If the mother’s life is at risk if she carries the pregnancy to term, how can she be expected to do nothing about the threat to her life?

This is an extreme example, but an ectopic pregnancy is when the fetus starts developing in the fallopian tubes. In that case, the mother and fetus of no chance of survival due to internal bleeding, and the fetus is unable to develop properly. Is abortion ethical in this case?

The fetus’s right to life is based on the assumption that it is a person. Is there any way to logically define what about the fetus constitutes equivalency to a fully developed person, while considering the intrinsic connection that makes it difficult to distinguish between the mother and the fetus?