The morality and legality of abortion is a highly controversial issue in the United States and United Kingdom —"abortion" referring to both the separate act as well as the social sanction for the practice of terminating the life of a fetal being in utero. While the abortion debate is typically within the domain of the society, it also has many distinct aspects and contexts in issues ranging from human rights, morality, free will, health, religion, law, social structure, and personal welfare. The abortion debate centers around the issue of giving or maintaining social sanction for a widely controversial practice. Political sides have largely been separated into absolute extremes —either seeking to make all abortion illegal, or to place abortion under permanent legal sanction under the domains of legal privacy and women's rights. Human rights are rights which some hold to be inalienable and belonging to all humans. ... Morality is a system of principles and judgments based on cultural, religious, and philosophical concepts and beliefs, by which humans determine whether given actions are right or wrong. ... Free will is the philosophical doctrine that holds that our choices are ultimately up to ourselves. ... Corruption Jurisprudence Philosophy of law Law (principle) List of legal abbreviations Legal code Intent Letter versus Spirit Natural Justice Natural law Religious law Witness intimidation Legal research External links Wikibooks Wikiversity has more about this subject: School of Law Look up law in Wiktionary, the free dictionary Law, Legal Definitions... Social structure (also referred to as a social system) is a system in which people forming the society are organized by a patterns of prelationships. ... Welfare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia /**/ @import /skins-1. ... Moral absolutism is the belief or theory that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged and suggests that morals are not determined by societal or situational influences. ... Privacy is the ability of an individual or group to stop information about themselves from becoming known to people other than those they choose to give the information to. ... The term womens rights typically refers to the social and human rights of women. ...

Opponents of abortion —called "pro-life" activists —deem abortions to be acts of murder, while proponents, or "choice" advocates claim the issue to be in the domain of women's rights to choose to either deliver or abort a developing human fetus. While both "sides" have sought to influence public opinion (pregnant women, doctors, lawmakers, voters) the main concern has been with influencing the law, and hence attaining legal support for their positions. Both have likewise drawn their rhetorical arguments from various domains —in religion and morality (pro-life) and law and social pragmatism (pro-Choice). Every aspect is controversial —the lethal nature and personal, social, and moral effects of the procedure are compared against the social burdens, and sometimes physiological dangers, of carrying the fetus to term. Even the use of terms in reference to the fetal human being are controversial —"life" proponents claiming that a fetus is a "human life" from the moment of conception, while "choice" proponents claim that reference to the fetus as a human "baby" or child are based in religion and politics rather than in medicine or law. The term womens rights typically refers to the social and human rights of women. ... A legislator is a person who writes and passes laws, especially someone who is a member of a legislature. ... Pro-Choice is a common self-description used by people who believe that the government should protect abortion rights and believe that the choice of terminating pregnancy should be an option for a pregnant woman. ... The Elections and Parties Series Democracy Representative democracy History of democracy Referenda Liberal democracy Representation Voting Voting systems Ideology Elections Elections by country Elections by calender Electoral systems Politics Politics by country Political campaigns Political science Political philosophy Related topics Political parties Parties by country Parties by name Parties by... Medicine on the Web NLM (National Library of Medicine, contains resources for patients and healthcare professionals) Virtual Hospital (digital health sciences library by the University of Iowa) Online Medical Dictionary Collection of links to free medical resources Categories: Medicine | Health ... Corruption Jurisprudence Philosophy of law Law (principle) List of legal abbreviations Legal code Intent Letter versus Spirit Natural Justice Natural law Religious law Witness intimidation Legal research External links Wikibooks Wikiversity has more about this subject: School of Law Look up law in Wiktionary, the free dictionary Law, Legal Definitions...

However, perhaps most people hold a moderate position —one which respects views which seek to uphold respect (or, in religious terms, "sanctity") of human life, while considering the claim that "life begins at conception" to be too absolutist to be practical in society, or else is a particularly religious doctrine which is unsuitable for direct application to a secular society. Likewise, few (even among staunch pro-choice advocates) claim that late-term abortions (developed to viable age), should be socially sanctioned. In-between the absolute positions are a broad spectrum of often unreconcilable views in the various domains where the debate continues. However, most center around an estimated acceptable limit for abortions to be socially sanctioned, after which an abortion should be considered as an act of murder. Given that majority public opinion has sought a compromise between absolutes, such compromises from different political eras have focused on the practical matter of reducing the maximum allowable gestational age at which an abortion may be performed. This article concerns secularity, that is, being secular, in various senses. ...

During the early part of the twentieth century, abortion was illegal in the U.S., however, underground abortions were commonplace —often with the knowledge and tacit sanction of officials. The general rule had been that an abortion would not be performed if the child was "quick" or moving within the womb —which generally happens around 4.5 months gestation. Since Roe v. Wade, the law established limits on abortion according to gestational trimester periods — sanctioning first trimester abortions, but making all third trimester abortions illegal (except in special cases). Second trimester abortions would be limited, but with greater discretion. Holding Texas laws criminalizing abortion violated womens Fourteenth Amendment right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy. ... The human gestation period of approximately 40 weeks between the time of the last menstrual cycle and delivery is traditionally divided into three periods of three months, or trimesters. ...

Legalizing abortion made it also an issue which would under more strict regulation —allowing for the virtual elmination of late-term abortions. Still, "life" proponents claimed that the legal sanction of any abortion was a defeat, and sought to overturn Roe, while arguing to eliminate certain specific methods of abortion, and other related topics. Currently, 88 percent of abortions in the U.S. occur in the first trimester of pregnancy. Pro-life proponents seek to eliminate sanction for all abortions, including chemical abortion pills, also refered to as "emergency contraception," "late contraception" or "morning-after pills." While these pills may block implantation of a fertilized egg (new embryo), pro-life critics claim that this age too violates the principle of "life begins at conception." A chemical abortion is a type of abortion in which a drug is used to induce the abortion, rather than a surgical procedure. ...

The controversy

The morality and legality of abortion is an important subject in applied ethics and is also discussed by legal scholars and theologians. Important facts about abortion are also researched by sociologists and historians. Applied ethics takes a theory of ethics, such as utilitarianism, social contract theory, or deontology, and applies its major principles to a particular set of circumstances and practices. ... Many religions place legal or moral limitations on active abortion, for various theological reasons. ... This article provides a list of noted sociologists and major contributors to sociology (even if they did not primarily work as sociologists): Contents: Top - A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z... Historically, the ethicality of abortion (induced abortion) was rarely discussed. ...

Many societies historically considered abortion a crime against nature. Until the 19th century, abortion before "quickening" (the time when the fetus begins moving around, approximately the second trimester) was not expressly outlawed in many western countries including the US. By the mid 19th century abortion was illegal in the US and much of Europe. In the 1960s, abortion laws began to be liberalized in parts of Europe and in the United States. In some European countries, such as Germany and Spain, abortion is illegal even in the first trimester, although prosecution typically does not occur. Abortion is legal, and even sometimes encouraged in China(were the government sometimes forces abortions), India, the United States, and other countries. Europe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia /**/ @import /skins-1. ...

The Catholic Church is opposed to the act as murder. In many countries, notably the United States and the (predominantly Catholic) Republic of Ireland, the controversy is still extremely active, to the extent that even the names of the respective positions are subject to heated debate. While those on both sides of the argument are generally peaceful, if heated, in their advocacy of their positions, the debate is sometimes characterized by violence on both sides. This article considers Catholicism in the broadest ecclesiastical sense. ...

The central dilemma

The central dilemma in the abortion debate is the clash of presumed or perceived rights. On one hand is the fetus's presumed right to life, and on the other is a woman's right to control her body. One aspect of the issue involves defining when a fetus is a person, and gains the legal and/or moral right to life. Even if that could be agreed upon, that right must be weighed against the rights of the mother. For the direction right, see left and right or starboard. ... The term right to life is a political term used in controversies over various issues that involve the taking of a life (or what is perceived to be a life). ... Fetus at eight weeks A fetus (alternatively foetus or fœtus) is an unborn human offspring from the end of the 8th week of pregnancy (when the major structures have formed) until birth. ... In colloquial English, person is often synonymous with human. ...

The "pro-life" argument is that an embryo (or, in later stages of development, a fetus) is a human life— entitled to protection—from the moment of conception and, possessing a right to life that must be respected. If someone views an embryo or a fetus as a "life" requiring protection by the state, then termination of the pregnancy through an abortion procedure may be considered the legal and/or moral equivalent of murder. Pro-life demonstrators at the March for Life in Washington, D.C. on January 22, 2002. ... Embryos (and one tadpole) of the wrinkled frog (Rana rugosa you beezie). ... Fetus at eight weeks A fetus (alternatively foetus or fÅ“tus) is an unborn human offspring from the end of the 8th week of pregnancy (when the major structures have formed) until birth. ...

The "pro-choice" argument is that a woman's right to control her pregnancy outweighs any right claimed for the embryo or fetus during the first and second trimesters of the woman's pregnancy. Thereafter, termination of the pregnancy is permissible only to preserve the life or health of the woman. This was the essential holdng in the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, and it is accepted by most in the pro-choice community. Pro-Choice is a common self-description used by people who believe that the government should protect abortion rights and believe that the choice of terminating pregnancy should be an option for a pregnant woman. ...

In between these two principled arguments, agreements can sometimes be reached on certain issues. For instance, most "pro-life" advocates tolerate abortion in cases where the mother's life or health are at stake, and many do so in cases of rape or incest. "Pro-choice" advocates often accept a ban on abortions of "viable" fetuses – that is, those that are sufficiently developed to survive outside of the mother's womb if delivered. While there is some disagreement as to when a fetus is viable and what constitutes viability, the general consensus is that 24 weeks is a significant milestone of development.

Underlying this debate is another, over the role of the state: to what extent should the state interfere with a woman's pregnancy to protect the public interest, or to what extent should the state protect the general interest, even if it means controlling a woman's pregnancy? This is a major issue in a number of countries, such as India and China, which have tried to enforce forms of birth control (including forced sterilization), and the United States, which historically has limited access to birth control. A state is an organized political community occupying a definite territory, having an organized government, and possessing internal and external sovereignty. ... Sterilization is a surgical technique leaving a male or female unable to procreate. ... Birth control describes an effort to prevent or reduce the likelyhood of becoming a parent to a natural-born child. ...

The many and varied positions about abortion

The competing labels for positions tends to blur over important differences in what can be advocated about abortion. In discussions of abortion it is of paramount importance to distinguish the variety of conclusions that can be advocated on the subject. First, consider the unequivocal positions:

• Abortion is always morally permissible.
• Abortion is always immoral (morally impermissible).
• Abortion ought to be legal in every instance.
• Abortion ought to be illegal in every instance.

There are also several more qualified positions about abortion, which represent mid-ground between the relatively extreme positions that abortion is always moral, or never, and that it should always be legal, or never. That is, the qualified positions are that abortion is sometimes moral and at other times not, and in some cases it should be legal and in other cases not. Examples of these positions are:

• Abortion in the first trimester (or before the embryo or fetus is viable outside the womb) is morally permissible; abortion after that time is immoral.
• Abortion in the first trimester (or before the embryo or fetus is viable outside the womb) ought to be legal; abortion after that time ought to be illegal.
• Abortion up to the third trimester is morally permissible; in the third trimester (so-called late-term abortion), it is immoral.
• Abortion up to the third trimester ought to be legal; in the third trimester, it ought to be illegal.
• Abortion should always be illegal, except in some special circumstances—for example, when the mother's long-term health or life is at stake, when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or when the infant is deformed or likely to be born disabled.

The last position represents a point of serious controversy among pro-life advocates, who feel that, in those extremely rare cases where the completion of a pregnancy would likely result in severe permanent physical injury or death for the mother, abortion is morally permissible and/or should (continue to) be legally permitted. Some oppose this exception, becuase they consider the right to life of the unborn child to be equal to that of the mother; as such, they consider that neither the mother nor the child can be intentionally killed in order to save the other's life. Similarly, when pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, the situation created—where the mother is bearing a rapist's child, or her close relative's—is regarded as so morally repugnant that there is no moral obligation, and should be no legal obligation, to continue the pregnancy. Again, some people will not make an exception even in such cases. Some justify this with the severe depression, anxiety, and regret women may experience post-abortion. However many who oppose abortion consider that the unborn child has the right to be born regardless of the circumstances of conception. For the term trimester used in academic settings, see Academic term The human gestation period of approximately 40 weeks between the time of the last menstrual cycle and delivery is traditionally divided into three periods of three months, or trimesters. ... For the term trimester used in academic settings, see Academic term The human gestation period of approximately 40 weeks between the time of the last menstrual cycle and delivery is traditionally divided into three periods of three months, or trimesters. ... Late-term abortions are abortions which are performed during the late stages of pregnancy, often in the third trimester. ... Incest is the sexual activity or marriage between close family members. ...

Pro-choice advocates regularly argue in favor of sex education in high school, contraceptives and greater involvement by parents in the lives of their teens as the three best ways to reduce unintended pregnancies and therefore the need for abortions. Pro-life advocates generally argue against such high school courses on the grounds that they send "mixed signals" to teens, especially girls. Sex education is education about sexual reproduction in human beings, sexual intercourse and other aspects of human sexual behavior. ...

Situation in the United States

The signing of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was seen as a major political victory for the pro-life movement, though it was soon declared unconstitutional by several state-level courts.

In many countries, but most notably in the United States, the scientific, religious, and philosophical communities have remained polarized on most of these issues. Nine legislators stand behind Bush as he signs the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. ... Nine legislators stand behind Bush as he signs the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. ... The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (HR 760, S 3) (1) is a United States law that bans what it calls partial-birth abortion made in or affecting interstate commerce. ... Pro-life demonstrators at the March for Life in Washington, D.C. on January 22, 2002. ...

The political debate tends to center on questions of legality, though such debates are often based on moral questions. In the United States, the political debate centers on two questions:

1. Should "partial-birth abortions" (or "Intact dilation and extraction") for medical reasons related to the mother's health [1] continue to be legal?
2. Should first-trimester abortions continue to be legal? In the United States on a federal level, this is tantamount to asking, "Should the Roe v. Wade decision be overturned by the U S Supreme Court?"

As of November 5, 2003, United States President George W. Bush signed into law the "Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act" which makes it illegal for anyone to perform the procedure. However, members of the pro-choice community, represented by the ACLU, filed a lawsuit protesting the law. At present, the matter is unresolved. Partial-birth abortion (PBA) is a term used to refer to a specific type of late-term abortion, clinically known as intact dilation and extraction (IDX or Intact D&X). ... Intact dilation and extraction is a surgical abortion technique which can be used for partial-birth abortion of a living fetus or for the removal of a dead fetus after a late-term miscarriage, in which the patients cervix is dilated and fetus extracted in substantially one piece. ... Holding Texas laws criminalizing abortion violated womens Fourteenth Amendment right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy. ... Order: 43rd President of United States Vice President: Dick Cheney Term of office: January 20, 2001 – Present (His second term will end on January 20, 2009. ... The American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU, is a non_governmental organization devoted to defending civil rights and civil liberties in the United States. ...

The second question is a matter of concern for many, but the chances of Roe v. Wade being overturned are low. Also, opinion polls consistently show that most Americans accept the court decision as necessary to protect a woman's rights. Related issues such as requiring parental consent for minors, waiting periods, and education, are also in contention in some states. Other questions, such as federal funding of abortions, and acts such as the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" also are in contention in the United States. Signing ceremony at the White House, April 1, 2004. ...

The controversy over abortion remains a very emotionally charged issue, and difficult to resolve.

[1] The issue is actually more complicated than this, as opponents to a "health of the mother" exception contend that legally this would create a loophole legalizing any abortion. These opponents also claim that the procedure which is being banned is never necessary to preserve a woman's health.

Modern arguments

Overview

Briefly, the basis of the view that all, or almost all, abortion should be illegal is the belief that the life of a person—and all political rights attending it—begins at conception. Given that, one is invited to consider the common assumption that each innocent person is entitled to the protection of society against the deliberate destruction of its life by another person. The latter is a rough statement of the right to life, which is guaranteed in many basic legal and political documents such as the United States Declaration of Independence and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and is the basis of laws against murder. Twenty-five member nations of the Organization of American States (OAS) have ratified the "American Convention on Human Rights", which the United States has signed but not ratified; this Convention states in Article 4: "Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception." This is the view of pro-life advocates, that induced abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent unborn person in violation of the her human rights. The law should be consistent with this right to life, and thus induced abortion ought to be regarded legally as murder. Again, this is the basic argument against the legality of abortion. There exist people who morally disapprove of abortion but who, for other reasons, deny that abortion should be legally proscribed. This will be explained below. U.S. Declaration of Independence The Declaration of Independence is a document in which the Thirteen Colonies declared themselves independent of the Kingdom of Great Britain and explained their justifications for doing so. ... The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (also UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (A/RES/217, December 10, 1948), outlining a view on basic human rights. ...

One could also oppose the legality of abortion on nonreligious grounds, which is a strategy employed by those who believe that their personal religious considerations have no proper place in public policy debate, or should play only a limited and qualified role. One could say, for example, that the proposition that all humans are persons and that because a human life begins at conception so too does personhood—and the moral rights that entails. This is a genetic view of "human life" which begins with the union of parental gametes that creates a new individual with a distinct genetic identity, initiating the process that ends with death. Proponents of this view recognize that there is a period of several months during which the child is biologically dependent upon the mother to sustain its life, but they regard the obligation of a parent to protect the life of its child as one which ought to be an uncontroversial societal norm. Opponents argue that biologists are by no means unanimous in their agreement about when a human life begins. Other views of the human identity place the beginning of human life at later time. For example, one embryological view holds that individual human life begins when an embryo no longer is capable of forming twins, approximately 12 days after conception. However, apart from possibly abortifacient forms of birth control and the morning after pill, all abortions happen after the 12 day point since it is only around then that pregnancy becomes detectable, the latter point seems irrelevant to the question of abortion. Gametes (in Greek: γαμέτες) —also known as sex cells, germ cells, or spores—are the specialized cells that come together during fertilization (conception) in organisms that reproduce sexually. ... Fraternal twin boys in the tub The term twin most notably refers to two individuals (or one of two individuals) who have shared the same uterus (womb) and are usually, but not necessarily, born on the same day. ... Birth control describes an effort to prevent or reduce the likelyhood of becoming a parent to a natural-born child. ... The morning-after pill, also known as emergency contraception or emergency birth control, is a pill regimen that a woman can take up to three days after she has had sexual intercourse to prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg in her uterus. ...

Those who believe that abortion is morally permissible, and should remain legally permissible, typically have a different view of the issue as to when a human becomes a person that deserves a right to life. Many hold that an embryo or fetus which is incapable of surviving outside the mother's womb (a status generally reached no sooner than 23 weeks into gestation) is not recognizable as a human life separate from the mother's body, while others hold that human life starts with the development of a nervous system. Those opposed to abortion at any stage counter by saying that it is arbitrary when an embryo or fetus is to be considered a separate human life; the same person who exists today is the same person who existed the day she was born, the day before she was born, a month before she was born, and so on with no objective and rational place to draw the line. They argue that future technology may make it possible for a human life to develop entirely outside of a mother's body, and can point out that even today embryos that are frozen are later birthed by other mothers. Others argue that a fetus does not have the capacity for thought, self awareness, etc. required for personhood and thus does not have a strong right to life, in line with common treatment of animals and severely brain damaged (vegetative) humans.

For those who believe that abortion should be legally permissible (regardless of its morality), one of the most common arguments is based on privacy rights. Abortion rights advocates hold that a woman's right to determine what happens with her body (including whether to carry a pregnancy to term) is private, is not to be interfered with by outside influences, and negates all rights of her offspring. See the Thomson argument in the next section.

Another common argument is political pragmatism. Where abortion is illegal, some women nonetheless seek to end their pregnancies and will resort to unsafe methods that endanger their own lives—so-called "back-alley" abortions. Since modern medical testing makes it possible to estimate early in pregnancy whether a child might be born with severe defects, some abortion rights advocates also argue that requiring such children to be born would be an unnecessary burden on society as well as the parents—and might even be an immoral offense to the children themselves. This, however, raises another contentious moral issue, that of "selective" abortion, where parents might choose to terminate a pregnancy based on desired traits of the child (such as sex) that can be determined before birth.

Some abortion rights advocates point to global population pressures which many hold responsible for endemic hunger, overcrowding, and environmental impacts; they believe that making abortion illegal would result in further such pressures and would exacerbate these problems. They also sometimes refer to the difficulties and often miseries experienced by the children and their mothers, when the mothers are often single and impoverished. An increase of children born to such situations could result in an increase in social ills, including increases in crime, broadening of the population base of those living below the poverty line, and ballooning of the state welfare rolls. A related argument holds that the lower birth rates brought about by legal abortion result in fewer people competing for the jobs that are available, thus reducing the unemployment rate and creating labor shortages that drive up wages, particularly for the lowest-paid workers. Abortion opponents observe that a related rationale (but not the same rationale as legalization advocates usually base their stance in more than this argument, for example the definition of a living human being) led China to adopt its "one child" policy, which has led not only to increased abortions and sterilizations, but also to live baby daughters being secretly abandoned in hopes that the next child will be a son. When the answer to social ills is to reduce the number of people, the argument goes, other even less palatable ways of reducing existing populations may begin to look attractive as well. Abortion opponents also point out the abortion proponents rarely suggest killing infants and toddlers as a solution to hunger, overcrowding, and environmental impacts. In response those that favor legalization of abortion point out that sex selection is possible in the United States but no preference for either sex is seen, rather families generally choose balanced sex ratios—sometimes using abortion to achieve this result. Moreover, most advocates of abortion rights believe that babies are persons and thus infanticide would be immoral.

Philosophical argumentation on the moral issue

Contemporary philosophical literature contains two kinds of arguments for and against the morality of abortion. One family of arguments holds that the issue can be settled without considering personhood: whether abortion is morally permissible or not does not depend on whether the embryo and fetus are persons. Another family holds that what is of essence is the question of personhood.

In favor of moral permissibility, regardless of personhood

Judith Jarvis Thomson in her celebrated article argues that if one were to find oneself suddenly attached to another, adult human being, and in such a position such that, if one were to remove oneself, that other person would die, it is by no means clear that one would be obligated, morally or legally, to continue to be attached to that person. Her most famous case is that of the violinist. A famous violinist needs the use of your kidneys. Without consulting either you or the violinist, the Society of Music Lovers kidnaps you and hooks you up to the violinist, so that your kidneys are doing the job of his. In nine months it will be possible to disconnect the violinist with him surviving. Right now, however, disconnection will result in his death. Thomson thinks it is clearly permissible to disconnect oneself from the violinist even though she admits that this would be a killing. Thus even if the fetus has full personhood, abortion is permissible in some circumstances. Judith Jarvis Thomson (born 1929) is an American moral philosopher and metaphysician. ...

Abortion opponents find this argument unconvincing since the mother would only be "temporarily" attached to another human being—it is not as if the woman would be forced to be attached to the other indefinitely. Moreover, even if the attachment was permanent, from a legal and moral standpoint the argument given by Thomson is arguably fallacious. Using conjoined twins as an example, for one twin to remove him or herself from the other when the known consequence would be death for the other is indeed considered murder legally and morally. (See Himma 1999 for discussion of this point). Also, given the logic used, the adult human being the woman suddenly finds herself attached to would possess as much right as the woman to detach him or herself from the woman even if the woman dies as a result. Also against this argument the objection is frequently made that in about 99 percent of all cases (rape and incest account for about 1 percent) it was, after all, the mother who made a choice which caused an embryo to become attached to her, and therefore the analogy is imperfect. Others respond by modifying the analogy, arguing that women who become pregnant unintentionally were certainly not choosing to become attached to a fetus, and thus have a right to abortion.

Furthermore, some argue that there is a disanalogy between cases like that of the violinist and that of pregnancy. Many medical ethicists see a difference between ordinary and extraordinary care. To withhold ordinary care, such as food and water, from a patient is simply to kill the patient. But by the Principle of double effect, it can be morally permissible to withhold extraordinary care, e.g., medical treatments so expensive that a number of other lives could be saved by using the same money, if one does not intend the patient to die. What one needs to receive in normal life circumstances, such as food and water, always counts as ordinary care (though this does not exhaust ordinary care: medical procedures that are easily available and cause no harm to anyone are ordinary care). Since a normal life includes nine months in the womb, what the fetus receives is argued to be ordinary care. On the other hand, the abnormal burden placed on the person to whom the violinist is connected is to be extraordinary care. Some bioethical theories, including the teaching of the Catholic Church, distinguish ordinary and extraordinary care. ... In ethics, some theologians and philosophers cite the principle of double effect that states the necessary conditions to be met when ones action is considered morally right even thought it accompanies evil effect in some way. ...

When personhood is discounted, then it may be appropriate to consider the difference between "human life" and "other life". On what grounds, besides self interest, when personhood is disregarded, can it be stated that one human life is inherently more important than the lives of all the plants and animals that will perish to feed, clothe, and shelter that one human life? To the extent that the answer is "none", when personhood is disregarded, then that is the extent to which humans are not more important than other living things, and thus abortion is as morally permissible as the swatting of a mosquito.

Against moral permissibility, regardless of personhood

Don Marquis in a seminal article argues that even if the fetus is not a person, abortion is generally morally impermissible. To get to that conclusion, he starts by analysing what it is that makes the murder of an adult human being wrong. Killing an adult human deprives that adult human of a future. That is, after all, what killing is: the deprivation of future life. Killing is a paradigmatic case of a crime that is wrong because of the harm it imposes on the victim, and the harm is this deprivation of future life. If one believes in the permissibility of capital punishment one may add the qualifier that the victim has to be juridically innocent for the imposition of this harm to be wrong, but since the fetus is not juridically guilty, it is not necessary to discuss this qualifier further. Death Penalty World Map Color Key: Blue: Abolished for all crimes Yellow: Abolished, except for crimes committed under certain circumstances (such as crimes committed in time of war) Orange: Abolished in practice Red: Legal form of punishment Capital punishment, also referred to as the death penalty, is the judicially ordered...

If what makes killing one of us adults wrong is that it deprives us of our future, then killing a fetus is equally wrong, Marquis concludes. For killing a fetus deprives the fetus of "a future like ours". This deprivation is what made murdering you and me wrong. If that which makes killing you and me wrong is present in the case of abortion, it follows that abortion is wrong. Observe that the question of personhood is irrelevant. In fact, if the fetus is not a person, then the fetus is deprived of more and hence harmed more—the fetus is deprived of a chance to live as a person.

More precisely, if the argument is sound, it follows that abortion is wrong in all the cases in which the fetus would have a future such that killing an adult with that future would be wrong. Thus, if involuntary euthanasia of patients with a future filled with intense physical pain is morally acceptable, aborting fetuses whose future is filled with intense physical pain will also be morally acceptable. Note that it will not do here to invoke the fact that some fetus's future would involve such things as being raised by an unloving family, since we do not take it to be acceptable to kill a five-year-old just because her future involves being raised by an unloving family. Euthanasia (Greek, good death) is the practice of killing a person or animal, in a painless or minimally painful way, for merciful reasons, usually to end their suffering. ...

A powerful response to the Marquis argument is that the ovum and sperm have the same future as the fetus does. Hence, just as it is wrong to deprive the fetus of its future, it is wrong to deprive the ovum and sperm of their future. Therefore, the Marquis argument is claimed to imply the equal wrongness of contraception, which is meant to be a reductio ad absurdum (note that those who think contraception is wrong do not generally think it is as wrong as murder, so the reductio would seem to work for them, too). Marquis rejects the claim that his argument has such a conclusion. He says that it is not possible to point out which sperm is being deprived of a future through contraception—there are millions of competing sperm, and no one particular one can be pointed out as "the one" which is being deprived. Opponents, however, may note that if one were to see a particular sperm approaching a particular egg, preventing their union would still either not be wrong or at least not as wrong as murder.

Recently, a variant of the Marquis argument has taken on some popularity (see, e.g., Gomez-Lobo's Natural Goods). This variant is based on a slogan like "You were once a fetus". The argument claims that we adult human beings are the same individuals that once were fetuses. Our mothers may talk of the time when we were in their wombs, and this all seems perfectly natural. One can then argue with Marquis that the essential harm imposed on one of us by killing is the deprivation of future life. If we were killed before birth, the victim would still have been the same entity, the same organism. The harm would be the same or greater (since more future life would have been lost). If the harm is the same and the victim is the same, and the victim is no less (indeed, perhaps, more) innocent, then surely the deed is just as wrong. Therefore, the argument concludes, it would be just as wrong to kill us before birth as after birth.

A crucial element in the argument is the claim that the same entity that once was a fetus is now you. One way to argue for this claim is as follows. The fetus in your past was a living organism. This organism is either alive now or is no longer alive now. If this organism is no longer alive now, then at some point it died. But the fetus never died. Throughout its career in the womb, it was growing, increasing its abilities, and did not undergo any transformation that would count as a "perishing". Nor did birth kill the fetus. Hence that organism that was once the fetus you developed from has not died. Where, then, is that organism to be found? Surely the right answer is that it is precisely where you are: you are that organism. Consequently, the fetus and you are the same organism, at different stages of development.

Opponents of this version of the argument are likely to distinguish between two entities that are in the same place as you are. There is the animal or organism, on the one hand, and the person, on the other. This is counterintuitive: surely you are both an organism and a person, rather than you being a person and the animal being something else. If you are an organism and the fetus is the same organism as you are, then you and the fetus are the same individual. However, please note that in this section of the overall discussion, the concept of person is supposed to be excluded. Only the organism is supposed to be under consideration here. If the Marquis argument for human organisms fails to withstand logical scrutiny, then opponents of abortion, in this section of the discussion, should not fall back to an element which from-the-start was specifically excluded; they should find a different and more powerful argument.

A different kind of opposition to both this and the Marquis argument is to claim that what makes murder wrong is not just the deprivation of a future, but the deprivation of a future that one has an interest in. The fetus has no interest in its future. Hence, to kill it is not wrong, the opponent concludes. The defender of Marquis-style arguments may, however, give the counterexample of the suicidal teenager who takes no interest in his or her future, but killing whom is nonetheless wrong and murder. If the opponent responds that one can have an interest in one's future without taking an interest in it, then the defender of the Marquis-style argument can claim that every being objectively has an interest in that being's future even if the being takes no interest in it.

While a crucial premise in Marquis' argument is that the human fetus has a "future like ours", and hence is different from a whale or a mosquito, he does not explain exactly why a future like ours matters. He simply assumes it with no supporting rationale. Those who agree that a future like that which you and I will have is of deep value, a value of a kind different and greater than that of a whale or a mosquito, will be untroubled by this assumption. At the same time, philosophically, querying the source of this value is of deep interest. The concern here is that when personhood is disregarded, his results apply equally to whales and mosquitoes as to humans. However, defenders of Marquis will -- in spite of the fact that his argument is supposed to be entirely independent of the concept of personhood -- insist that he can avail himself of considerations of personhood. For, our future life would be the life of a person, and if a fetus has a future like ours, then that fetus's future life would also be the life of a person. Since it is the future life that the argument is rooted in, it is irrelevant to the argument as Marquis presents it whether the fetus now counts as a person or not. On the other hand, that interpretation of Marquis' argument implies that there is such a thing as a right to experience the future. Certainly there is a right to try to experience the future, because that is the essence of "living" in action. But success at it is by no means any sort of right. Else the concept of "death" would be utterly unknown...even for mosquitoes.

Personhood

Mary Anne Warren, in her famous article arguing for the permissibility of abortion, begins by criticizing Thomson's violinist argument as only applicable in cases of rape. Warren holds that moral opposition to abortion is based on the following argument:

1. It is wrong to kill innocent human beings.
2. The fetus is an innocent human being.
3. Hence it is wrong to kill the fetus.

Warren, however, thinks that "human being" is used in different senses in (1) and (2). In (1), "human being" is used in a moral sense as meaning "person". In (2), "human being" means "biological human." That the fetus is a biologically human organism or animal is indisputable, Warren holds. But it does not follow that the fetus is a person, and it is persons that have rights, such as the right not to be killed.

To help make a distinction between "person" and "biological human", Warren notes that we should respect the lives of highly intelligent aliens, even if they are not biological humans. She thinks that there is a cluster of properties that characterize persons:

1. consciousness (of objects and events external and/or internal to the being), and in particular the capacity to feel pain
2. reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems)
3. self-motivated activity (activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control)
4. the capacity to communicate, by whatever means, messages of an indefinite variety of types, that is, not just with an indefinite number of possible contents, but on indefinitely many possible topics
5. the presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness, either individual or racial, or both

A person does not have to have each of these, but if something has all five then it definitely is a person whether it is biologically human or not, while if it has none or only one then it definitely is not a person, again whether it is biologically human or not. The fetus has at most one, consciousness (and only after it becomes susceptible to pain—the exact timing is not yet agreed on), and hence is not a person.

Alfonso Gomez-Lobo has also claimed that Warren's criteria beg the question: she has simply listed the qualities that adult human beings have, and noted that fetuses do not have them, without showing that these qualities are what makes for the right to life. Nonetheless, it seems plausible that applying something like Warren's criteria would be how we would figure out if it was acceptable to kill members of an alien species.

Some critics also point out that infants (indeed up to about one year of age, since it is only around then that they begin to outstrip the abilities of non-human animals) only have one of these characteristics—consciousness—and hence have to be accounted non-persons by Warren. Warren explicitly agrees with this conclusion in later writing, but denies that the conclusion leads to morally repugnant conclusions such as the general permissibility of infanticide. For, Warren claims, once a human being is born, there is no longer a conflict between it and the mother's rights, since the human being can be given up for adoption. Killing such a human being would be wrong, not because it is a person, but because it would go against the desires of many people willing to adopt the infant and to pay to keep the infant alive. Nonetheless, Warren grants that her argument implies that infanticide is morally acceptable under some circumstances, such as those of a desert island. Opponents of her argument can claim that this concession in itself provides a reductio ad absurdum of the argument. Infanticide is the practice of intentionally causing the death of an infant. ...

Opponents argue that the sense in which the properties apply to a comatose adult human being is also not completely clear. This is probably an area for further philosophical development on both sides.

Moreover, opponents of the Warren argument may argue that if it is these qualities that make the life of a human being valuable, then this may be thought to suggest that a human being that has these qualities to a greater extent is deserving of greater respect while one that has them to a lesser extent is deserving of lesser respect. After all, most of the qualities listed are on a continuum, admitting of lesser and greater degrees. Furthermore, this continuity makes the exact point at which personhood ensues be something vague, and human beings around that point, say between one and two years of age, will have a shadowy moral status. If one thinks that there are no shadowy moral statuses, then this will be a reason to reject the argument.

Those who argue that abortion is morally impermissible can argue that what matters is not that one be actually exhibiting the five qualities Warren identifies, but that one have in oneself a self-directed genetic propensity to develop the qualities, and a fetus has that. Alternately, one might argue that a person is an individual that normally exhibits these qualities at some point of its life, even if it does not actually exhibit them because of not having developed them (embryo, fetus) or having lost them (Alzheimer's). In this way, the opponents of the permissibility of abortion can try to make use of the arguments in the previous section to the effect that the human fetus is the same entity as is later a human adult. If one grants that claim, and if one thinks that personhood is an essential property, one that one has throughout one's existence and cannot gain or lose, then one will accept that the fetus is a person. Alzheimers disease (AD) or senile dementia of Alzheimers type is a neurodegenerative disease which results in a loss of mental functions due to the deterioration of brain tissue. ...

When discussing the concept of personhood, it is possible to make a distinction between the person and the body in which that person resides. One could liken the body as a kind of "vehicle" in which the person travels from place to place. Evidence for this assertion is offered by every pilot or driver who ever felt at one with the vehicle. That is, if a person's point-of-view can encompass a body not-its-own as if that vehicle was its body, then the person is indeed something distinct from any type of body. When telepresence technology matures, everyone will have an opportunity to experience the truth of the preceding statements. Therefore the concept of personhood is so unique that all mere physical attributes of any specified body can be ignored. Whether whole or handicapped, albino or violet, Earth-born or alien, carbon-based or otherwise, biological or cyborg or purely robotic, the body-as-vehicle is overshadowed by the special concept of personhood. Thus, returning to the body with which a human person is born, looking out through the eyes is like looking out through a wind-shield, and accidents, of course, are to be avoided. Like any other vehicle, the body requires proper maintenance, and it is known that for an adult human body a certain amount of sexual activity is healthful. This naturally can lead to the special situation of pregnancy, in which biological machinery manufactures more biological machinery -- a new vehicle, that is. When personhood is regarded, much of the argumentation over abortion actually pivots on the question of whether or not the new-vehicle-under-construction is occupied by a driver. If one identifies the presence of a "driver" with the existence of someone who exhibits consciousness at present, the available evidence indicates that the answer is negative early on. Prior to the point of the appearance of consciousness, therefore, arbitrary termination of the construction project is not the killing of a person, and hence may be morally permissible. It has been proposed that Telerobotics be merged and redirected into this article. ...

Related articles

• Abortion law
• Abortion and Evangelical Christians
• Religion and abortion
• See person for a discussion of personhood.
• Slogan:A woman's right to choose
• Slogan:Human life begins at conception

Abortion has been a controversial subject throughout history due to the moral and ethical issues that surround it. ... Abortion and Evangelical Christians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia /**/ @import /skins-1. ... Many religions place legal or moral limitations on active abortion, for various theological reasons. ... In colloquial English, person is often synonymous with human. ... The slogan human life begins at conception embodies pro-life advocates position that a new human being comes into existence at the moment an ovum is fertilized. ...

Related links

• Public opinion on when abortion is acceptable
• Survey of which women have abortions, and why

Pro-life organizations

• Abortion no.org
• Consistent Life
• Feminists for Life
• Libertarians for Life
• PLDaily.com
• Prayer for Life
• Pro-Life Action
• Pro-Life Campaign Committee
• Pro-Life Campaign Committee News

Pro-Choice organizations

• Choice USA
• Medical Students for Choice
• NARAL Pro-Choice America
• National Abortion Federation
• Planned Parenthood
• Pro-Choice Libertarians
• Pro-Choice Public Education Project
• Quotations About Abortion
• The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

References

• Don Marquis, “An Argument that Abortion is Wrong,” in John Arthur (ed.), Morality and Moral Controversies, 5th Ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999)
• Jane English, “Abortion and the Concept of a Person,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy, vol. 5, no. 2 (October 1975)
• Judith Jarvis Thomson, "A Defense of Abortion," Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 1, no. 1 (1971)
• Kenneth Einar Himma, “Thomson’s Violinist and Conjoined Twins,” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, vol. 8, no. 4 (Fall 1999)