Abortion
Musings. This article attempts to provide a researched, practical, and succinct abortion framework using the most sound moral theory I have found. Abortion should always be permitted before 24 weeks of gestation. It becomes more nuanced after that.
I present a practical and reasoned argument regarding the morality of abortion based on Mill's Rule Utilitarian Theory. Review my article for a primer on his ethical theory.
References will be in parenthesis like this (R#) and clarifications like this (C#) with the full information after the body of the article. C11 to C20 in the list stand on their own and are not in the body. Before beginning the essence of the abortion discussion I will establish terms and definitions chosen to keep the discussion focused. "Abortion proponents" will refer to people who generally support abortion while "abortion opponents" will refer to those who generally do not support abortion. Further, I will use "abortee" to refer to that which is considered for abortion regardless of whether or not it is aborted. "Aborter" will denote that which is pregnant and considering abortion regardless of follow through. (C1, C2.)
Using Mill's theory requires determining standing. Are all parties involved eligible for moral protections? To receive protection they must register intellectual and physical feelings. Anything in society eligible for standing and impacted should be considered before committing acts. I will assume because the aborter is considering abortion they register intellectual and physical feelings. At what point can the abortee feel pain and register intellectual feelings? How can we know without asking the abortee? Recent studies indicate intellectual feelings develop after birth because they are permanently sedated in utero and need exposure to stimuli after birth for functions related to intellect to develop (R1, R2). The physical aspect enabling the possibility of feelings start developing in the 24th week of gestation (R1, R2, R3). Mill's theory gives precedence for intellectual feelings because an intellectual capacity is required to interpret physical feelings. Physical feelings are unnecessary for intellectual ones (C3). Both physical and intellectual feelings must be present in order to be afforded full moral standing. If the capacity for physical feelings has developed then the abortee should at least be afforded minimal protections. If both capacities develop, then it should be afforded protections equal to anything else with those capacities developed and active.
The most basic connections necessary to register physical feelings but not sufficient on their own link up in the 24th week of gestation (~24 weeks after the last menstruation) or later (R1, R2, R3). The brain and nerve pathways connect to enable physical feelings. Prior to 24 weeks moral considerations do not include the abortee and instead rest entirely on other factors such as how the aborter and others in society are impacted. From 24 weeks to birth the abortee is minimally considered in abortion decisions. Intellectual reasons may take precedence over an abortee's physical capacities. (C4.)
With this established we can determine the morality of abortion. I will consider two acts: moral considerations prior to 24 weeks and those starting with 24 weeks.
Act One: Prior to 24 weeks in a pregnancy an aborter who does not want to continue the pregnancy is morally permitted to (C5, C6)…
Standing: We consider the aborter and anyone impacted in society but not the abortee.
…(+9) Abort.
~(+3) The aborters health risks with an early abortion are lower than for continuing the pregnancy (R4, R5).
~(+2) An abortion will free up limited resources that would be used for raising offspring such as time, knowledge, and money that the aborter can use for basic needs such as food, healthcare, education, and taking care of other offspring (R6).
~(+1) The most common response for the aborter following an abortion is relief (R7).
~(+1) An abortion will allow the aborter to more easily pursue other pursuits such as school, work, paying off debt, self help, and/or something else.
~(+1) Because most abortions are the result of unplanned pregnancies (R6) to unmarried people (R6, R8) it is likely that family, friends, and lovers would be supportive and relieved to abort.
~(+1) An abortion would help alleviate global resource scarcity.
~(+1) An abortion would help slow or stabilize overpopulation.
~(0) The risk of mental health problems is similar for abortions and carrying to term (R9).
~(0) The aborter will likely continue whatever they were doing (career, education).
~(-1) The aborter could face social shaming by aborting (R10, R11).
…(-8) Continue the pregnancy to adopt the abortee out.
~(+2) The adopters could receive joy.
~(+1) The abortee may die anyway. The loss of the abortee before the 20th week (miscarriages or spontaneous abortions) occur in 15 to 20 percent of pregnancies (R12).
~(0) Getting an abortion and carrying to term have a similar risk of mental health problems (R9).
~(0) The abortee could live a happy life, but that capacity has not yet developed so is irrelevant.
~(-1) Many people facing unexpected and unwanted pregnancies are unmarried (R6) and by continuing the pregnancy they will face social shaming irrespective of the circumstances of pregnancy.
~(-2) The aborter would have to risk her health and well being by carrying to term as giving birth is more risky than an early abortion (R4, R5). There is a big difference between aborting a pregnancy and adoption. Before the abortee is viable, nobody else could care for or raise it. After birth, other people can and do adopt so the abortee can develop without straining the aborter.
~(-2) Currently 104,000 people in USA alone are waiting for adoption (R13). Carrying to term would add to this number and cause even more kids to wait for adoption.
~(-2) Carrying to term would continue to strain social service and adoption agency resources by adding to the cost of everyone and increasing those waiting for adoption. Currently 20,000 children yearly are never adopted before they age out of the system (R14).
~(-2) People continuing pregnancies would increase: social costs, unloved children, neglect, abuse, shelters and orphanages filled over capacity, a lack of adoptive parents, poverty, educational support, social support, and police enforcement (R13, R14, R15, R16, R17).
~(-2) The aborter would have to continue carrying the abortee against her will.
…(-11) Continue the pregnancy to keep the abortee.
~(+1) The abortee may die anyway. The loss of the abortee before the 20th week (miscarriages or spontaneous abortions) occur in 15 to 20 percent of pregnancies (R12).
~(0) Getting an abortion and carrying to term have a similar risk of mental health problems (R9).
~(0) The abortee could live a happy life, but that capacity has not yet developed so is irrelevant.
~(-1) Many people facing unexpected and unwanted pregnancies are unmarried (R6) and by continuing the pregnancy they will face social shaming irrespective of the circumstances of pregnancy.
~(-1) Family, friends, and impregnator are unlikely to properly support the offspring (R6, R18, R19).
~(-1) Because the aborter does not want to continue the pregnancy the aborter may be "too young and immature" or "not ready for the responsibility" and may therefore be more likely to neglect the offspring (R6, R18, R19).
~(-1) It is likely to increase strain on the aborter and prevent continuing an education, finding a good job, saving for retirement, finding a stable income to support both, or otherwise working on herself (R6, R18, R19).
~(-2) The aborter would have to risk her health and well being by carrying to term as giving birth is more risky than an early abortion (R4, R5).
~(-2) Long term the aborter may undergo personal hardships attempting to access resources such as money, time, and knowledge to raise the abortee effectively (R6, R18, R19).
~(-2) The aborter is likely to require social services thereby increasing costs in time, money, and resources for everyone and strain education, healthcare, and police enforcement because they would have a lower income (R6, R18, R19).
~(-2) The aborter would have to continue carrying the abortee against her will.
Conclusion One:
(C7.) As a rule, if an aborter does not desire a pregnancy for any reason they are morally permitted to and should abort. Because of the negative impacts of adoption and keeping the abortee the aborter is under no moral obligation to do so. Further, considering adoption or keeping the abortee when the aborter does not want to continue the pregnancy appears to be an immoral act.
Act Two: Beginning with the 24th week in a pregnancy an aborter who does not want to continue the pregnancy is morally permitted to (C8, C9)…
Standing: We consider the aborter and any impacted persons in society and also minimally consider the abortee.
…(+3) Abort.
~(+2) An abortion will free up limited resources that would be used for raising offspring such as time, knowledge, and money that the aborter can use for basic needs such as food, healthcare, education, and taking care of other offspring (R6).
~(+1) The most common response for the aborter following an abortion is relief (R7).
~(+1) An abortion will allow the aborter to more easily pursue other pursuits such as school, work, paying off debt, self help, or something else.
~(+1) Because most abortions are the result of unplanned pregnancies (R6) to unmarried people (R6, R8) it is likely that family, friends, and lovers would be supportive and relieved to abort.
~(+1) An abortion would help alleviate global resource scarcity.
~(+1) An abortion would help slow or stabilize overpopulation.
~(0) The health risk of abortion increases closer to those of pregnancy as the pregnancy progresses (R20).
~(0) The risk of mental health problems is similar for abortions and carrying to term (R9).
~(0) The aborter will likely continue whatever they were doing (career, education).
~(0) The abortee could be anesthetized (C10).
~(-1) The aborter could face social shaming by aborting (R10, R11).
~(-3) The abortee possibly developed the ability to feel pain. Because it is minimally considered it holds minimal worth and protections against abortion.
…(+7) Abort because continuing the pregnancy would cause the aborter undue hardship (financial, social, health, otherwise) and/or for health reasons for the abortee.
~(+2) The aborters health is valued. She is not obligated to impair her health. She would suffer by continuing the pregnancy.
~(+2) The abortee may impair great cost for society if it has health issues.
~(+2) An abortion will free up limited resources that would be used for raising offspring such as time, knowledge, and money that the aborter can use for basic needs such as food, healthcare, education, and taking care of other offspring (R6).
~(+1) The most common response for the aborter following an abortion is relief (R7).
~(+1) An abortion will allow the aborter to more easily pursue other pursuits such as school, work, paying off debt, self help, or something else.
~(+1) Because most abortions are the result of unplanned pregnancies (R6) to unmarried people (R6, R8) it is likely that family, friends, and lovers would be supportive and relieved to abort.
~(+1) An abortion would help alleviate global resource scarcity.
~(+1) An abortion would help slow or stabilize overpopulation.
~(0) The health risk of abortion increases closer to those of pregnancy as the pregnancy progresses (R20).
~(0) The risk of mental health problems is similar for abortions and carrying to term (R9).
~(0) The aborter will likely continue whatever they were doing (career, education).
~(0) The abortee could be anesthetized (C10).
~(-1) The aborter could face social shaming by aborting (R10, R11).
~(-3) The abortee possibly developed the ability to feel pain. Because it is minimally considered it holds minimal worth and protections against abortion.
…(+7) Abort when the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest.
~(+2) The aborter had no say in the pregnancy in the cases of rape or coerced incest. Both the initial abuse and continuing the pregnancy would be traumatic. Nobody should be expected to support something that was forced upon them. If they desire to end the pregnancy they should have that option freely available.
~(+2) Eliminates support needed to tend to the abortee because of the abortee's higher risk of health issues (R21).
~(+2) An abortion will free up limited resources that would be used for raising offspring such as time, knowledge, and money that the aborter can use for basic needs such as food, healthcare, education, and taking care of other offspring (R6).
~(+1) The most common response for the aborter following an abortion is relief (R7).
~(+1) An abortion will allow the aborter to more easily pursue other pursuits such as school, work, paying off debt, self help, or something else.
~(+1) Because most abortions are the result of unplanned pregnancies (R6) to unmarried people (R6, R8) it is likely that family, friends, and lovers would be supportive and relieved to abort.
~(+1) An abortion would help alleviate global resource scarcity.
~(+1) An abortion would help slow or stabilize overpopulation.
~(0) The health risk of abortion increases closer to those of pregnancy as the pregnancy progresses (R20).
~(0) The risk of mental health problems is similar for abortions and carrying to term (R9).
~(0) The aborter will likely continue whatever they were doing (career, education).
~(0) The abortee could be anesthetized (C10).
~(-1) The aborter could face social shaming by aborting (R10, R11).
~(-3) The abortee possibly developed the ability to feel pain. Because it is minimally considered it holds minimal worth and protections against abortion.
…(-3) Continue the pregnancy to adopt the abortee out.
~(+3) If the aborter didn't want the abortee, the adopters, if the screening is effective, would likely be stable and able to raise it without infringing on physical feelings.
~(+2) The adopters could receive joy.
~(+1) The abortee may die anyway. The loss of the abortee before the 20th week (miscarriages or spontaneous abortions) occur in 15 to 20 percent of pregnancies (R12).
~(0) The health risk of abortion increases closer to those of pregnancy as the pregnancy progresses (R20).
~(0) Getting an abortion and carrying to term have a similar risk of mental health problems (R9).
~(0) The abortee could live a happy life, but that capacity has not yet developed so is irrelevant.
~(-1) Many people facing unexpected and unwanted pregnancies are unmarried (R6) and by continuing the pregnancy they will face social shaming irrespective of the circumstances of pregnancy.
~(-2) Currently 104,000 people in USA alone are waiting for adoption (R13). Carrying to term would add to this number and cause even more kids to wait for adoption.
~(-2) Carrying to term would continue to strain social service and adoption agency resources by adding to the cost bared by society and increasing those waiting for adoption. Currently 20,000 children yearly are never adopted and age out of the system (R14).
~(-2) People continuing pregnancies would increase: social costs, unloved children, neglect, abuse, shelters and orphanages filled over capacity, a lack of adoptive parents, poverty, educational support, social support, and police enforcement (R13, R14, R15, R16, R17).
~(-2) The aborter would have to continue carrying the abortee against her will.
…(-9) Continue the pregnancy to keep the abortee.
~(+1) The abortee may die anyway. The loss of the abortee before the 20th week (miscarriages or spontaneous abortions) occur in 15 to 20 percent of pregnancies (R12).
~(0) The health risk of abortion increases closer to those of pregnancy as the pregnancy progresses (R20).
~(0) Getting an abortion and carrying to term have a similar risk of mental health problems (R9).
~(0) The abortee could live a happy life, but that capacity has not yet developed so is irrelevant.
~(-1) Many people facing unexpected and unwanted pregnancies are unmarried (R6) and by continuing the pregnancy they will face social shaming irrespective of the circumstances of pregnancy.
~(-1) Family, friends, and impregnator are unlikely to properly support the offspring (R6, R18, R19).
~(-1) Because the aborter does not want to continue the pregnancy, the aborter may be "too young and immature" or "not ready for the responsibility" and may therefore be more likely to neglect the offspring (R6, R18, R19).
~(-1) It is likely to increase strain on the aborter and prevent continuing an education, finding a good job, saving for retirement, finding a stable income to support both, or otherwise working on herself (R6, R18, R19).
~(-2) Long term the aborter may undergo personal hardships attempting to access resources such as money, time, and knowledge to raise the abortee effectively (R6, R18, R19).
~(-2) The aborter is likely to require social services thereby increasing costs in time, money, and resources for everyone and strain education, healthcare, and police enforcement because they would have a lower income (R6, R18, R19).
~(-2) The aborter would have to continue carrying the abortee against her will.
Conclusion Two:
Starting with the 24th week in a pregnancy the reasons for abortion become more nuanced. An aborter is still morally permitted to abort, however, the moral imperative is not as strong as before 24 weeks. The impact of physical feelings and other factors reduce the morality. While it is still moral, it is not as strongly weighted as in the other case. If an aborter does not desire a pregnancy they can still abort. It still appears to be morally preferable to abort than to put the abortee up for adoption or to keep the abortee. Further, it appears less immoral to put the abortee up for adoption than keeping the abortee. The difference is not as vast as in the first instance, before 24 weeks.
Overall Conclusion:
The morality of abortion is such that as a rule it is morally permitted for any reason before 24 weeks gestation. Starting with 24 weeks it remains moral although the morality is not as strong.
Abortion Policy:
I have attempted to avoid politicizing this article. I will touch briefly on how policy should be shaped. As a male it is difficult to suggest policy because I cannot fully understand what it is like to have an unwanted pregnancy. Women should be chiefly involved in altering policy.
~All abortions must remain legal for any reason. The guidance for legality should be simply based on two factors, what the doctor recommends and what the aborter orally consents to. If the aborter desires an abortion and the doctor agrees, that would be sufficient for legal protection. Those are the only two that should be involved in the decision. The aborter or doctor would not be subject to legal barriers and repercussions so long as there was mutual consent. A simple verbal exchange would suffice. Of course they can still recommend or offer adoption as an option, but there would be no barriers or legal requirements for anything else. The aborter would not even have to give a reason and could simply state she wants an abortion.
~The requirements must remain lax. The abortion rate remains the same regardless of legality (R6, R20, R23, R24, R25, R26, R27) and the vast majority of unsafe abortions occur in countries with restrictive abortion laws (R28). When people abort it should be as safe for the aborter and doctor as possible. Laws should enable people to be open about abortion rather than using underground means. People should not fear legal repercussions. People otherwise try to abort on their own, go to someone unqualified, or go somewhere without supervision and with subpar conditions (R28). When abortion is criminalized pregnant people die because of the complications arising from unsafe abortions (R26, R27, R28, R29). It must remain legal because otherwise the health of the aborter will be at risk when she tries un-sanctioned methods of abortion.
~There have been cases where the aborters life was at risk but she could not abort because the doctor feared legal repercussions. Aborters have died in these circumstances (R22). That is unacceptable and must be prevented by ensuring doctors do not fear legal repercussions for performing abortions. The doctor must be permitted to make an informed expedient decision to save an aborters life.
~It is difficult to know what an aborter goes through in the case of rape or incest. The reasons to ensure abortion is available in cases of rape and incest are very simple: they are traumatic and damaging to the victim. It may take a long time to heal. They were likely very hurt. Abuse victims find it difficult to cope with the trauma, and for those reasons alone, should be able to abort at any time.
~I support mandatory counseling to ensure the aborter is not coerced to act against her will.
~After 24 weeks gestation AND after the abortee is viable I support policy that offers counseling for additional options such as inducing labor contingent on a few factors: the abortee is perfectly healthy; there is a couple waiting and willing to adopt immediately; and there is not an overriding factor to dissuade an abortion such as rape, incest, health issues of the aborter and/or abortee, and/or it causing undue hardship on anyone.
~ Abortion is not a primary method of birth control. People do not want abortions, they do it after careful deliberation. People unintentionally become pregnant for various reasons. (R18, R6, R20.) Yes, it is better for society not to need abortions in the first place. We can reduce the demand for abortions through better sex education and by affording people knowledge to make informed choices to avoid becoming pregnant. The vast majority of abortions are done in the first stage of pregnancy (R6, R8, R19, R20, R30). This is a time that if a woman had a natural abortion, a miscarriage, people do not think about it or grieve. It happens. The person could have been raped, become pregnant through incest, had sex with someone who was dishonest with them, slept with someone they thought loved them, had a condom break, thought they were using effective birth control but weren't, or many other reasons.
~Governments should recognize the long term impact of abortions. If abortion restrictions were actually effective (which they aren't) then funding for government support programs and social services would need to increase to care for the health, safety, education, food, and other needs of the abortee. Hopelessly deformed and diseased abortees that are instead preserved raises support costs to the government by a massive amount. It takes a tremendous amount of resources. If criminalizing abortions were effective a massive increase in government expenditures on assistance programs would ensue.
~The government needs to include long term reversible birth control options that are easy to obtain and free such as IUD's or something equivalent. When a female goes to a doctor for any reason they should be offered this birth control for free and immediately. The doctors office can then bill the government. Anyone providing health services to women would be required to provide this and the government would reimburse a set fee. Further, I support policy requiring free long term reversible birth control such as an IUD to be inserted immediately after an abortion or at the least requiring counseling to recommend that. Men could have an equivalent policy.
~While abortion should always be easy before 24 weeks gestation, net utility would increase by avoiding abortion altogether. Beyond strongly supporting free birth control methods we need to mandate that all school curriculum provide proper sex education that teaches the realities of sex and what people are up to. Further, we could reduce abortions by being more accepting of pregnant people. Less social shame from society could reduce abortions.
~Let us continue to support and encourage adoption for the 104,000 children waiting for adoption and prevent 20,000 yearly from ever being adopted (R14).
~We should be more open and honest with each other about abortion, especially if we have had an abortion. Because people do not speak about it they assume others don't have them and a social stigma is exacerbated because nobody knows about it (R10).
~Even though the abortee likely cannot feel anything as it is in a permanent state of sedation in the womb (R1, R2), I support anesthetizing the abortee if it is safe for the aborter.
End:
This report is not extensive and fully complete, but for the purpose of the discussion is sufficient to reach a sound conclusion regarding the morality of abortion. Am I wrong? Did I miss something? Is my reasoning flawed? Are my references weak? Submit your feedback here, including suggesting better terms to use, illuminating areas my article could be strengthened, and pointing out missed considerations. There could be numerous areas of weakness: assumptions, calculations, word choice, biases personally and in the information I came across, lack of information, incorrect acts, incorrect support, or numerous other areas. With new information and to better reflect what I intend to convey this article may be modified or updated. Sometimes intentions and reality are different. What makes sense to me might not to my readers.
(C#.) Clarifications:
C1. Other terms are problematic because they are distracting, inaccurate, politicized, and/or emotionally charged. It is disingenuous and misleading to use the words baby or child to describe a fetus. These words all describe different stages of development with baby and child used to describe something after birth. Some problematic terms used are: pro-life, pro-choice, fetus, embryo, baby, child, human, mother, and murder. These terms are all problematic for similar reasons, they are not accurate. The discussion is about abortion, not what people think of life, choices, murder, babies, or motherhood. Induced abortion and spontaneous abortion are more accurate terms that in general use simply mean abortion and miscarriage respectively. As the common usage of these words appears unproblematic I have chosen to use them. I deliberated at length to discover appropriate language and settled on the terms used. There probably are better terms. I have strived to use language that keeps the discussion focused. If you have suggestions for improving my word choice please contact me.
C2. Some people will equate abortion to the murder of a born human. The statement "abortion is murder" is false, loaded, emotionally motivated, and distracts and misdirects from an open abortion discussion. Two requirements of murder are that it is an illegal act AND that it is against a human. In many countries abortion is legal and in most stages the abortee is not afforded ANY protections granting humanness. Abortion and murder are different. Abortion should remain an option available for pregnant people. Abortion poses no risk to any person born and afforded moral protections in society. Only the abortee is impacted. Murder is punishable because it poses a real risk to society because of the indiscriminate harm it can inflict. Abortion is specific. Nobody in society is at risk because they are not in the aborters womb. The scope of abortion is limited to the physical space of one person. As it does not threaten anyone granted moral protections it should remain legal. Only acts that infringe on rights of others afforded moral protections should be considered for criminalization. If someone persists that abortion is murder (which it is not) at the least if they accept morally killing in self defense they should always permit abortion in cases when the aborters health, especially life, is at risk. Some people may claim qualified professionals do not KNOW (implying certain knowledge) that an aborters life is in danger. That is a distraction because they can conclude it with reasonable certainty. It could be similarly argued that for self defense someone does not know for certain that an attacker will kill them, but people are justified ending someone else's life when they can reasonably conclude that theirs is in danger from another person. Further, the abortee does not have the ability to think or feel pain until a much later stage. It has no desire to live (or die) or comprehend what the concepts are. It has no desire, intellect, or care about what happens to it. Until the abortee is viable outside of the aborter it is relying on the aborter to sustain it. We "pull the plug" (which is not murder) on people that cannot think, are in a vegetative state, or even simply do not want to be on life support, and we can make the decisions for those who cannot make them for themselves for many reasons, some being that they are being a drain, they are better off dead, they can die naturally, and maybe something else. As a society we make these decisions on what life we can abort. Just as we are morally justified in doing that for someone who has been born, we can and should be permitted to make the same decisions to pull the plug on abortees.
C3. Some people cannot feel physical stimuli, particularly pain (R31), but may register intellectual feelings and still be afforded full moral protections. If someone cannot register intellectual pleasures we would usually consider them to be vegetative or disabled. We "pull the plug" on people who cannot register intellectual feelings because we deem them as essentially dead and void of the capacity to feel or think. They do not have the qualities essential for moral protections and continued life.
C4. The person most impacted by a pregnancy is the aborter. The aborter is the only one who has to assist the abortee while it is in the womb. Thus, issues that directly concern the aborter are weighted and considered more heavily than for others in society. After birth the roles may change and society may become more impacted. It can vary based on the issue as well. An aborter on government subsidized healthcare indirectly impacts society through tax expenditures spent for check ups, cost of birth, and other health costs relating to pregnancy.
C5. People are able and competent to make the choice based upon their own deliberations. There are cases of people protesting abortion clinics when they have had an abortion (R32). This is needs to stop. It is narcissistic and supremacist to think you are superior to make that choice and your reason is good enough, but someone else is not able and competent to make the same choice. Think if it is ever conceivable that you or the closest female you know would ever, in any circumstance, be justified in having an abortion. Maybe this person's life is in danger, she is bleeding and the doctor says simply, "If you don't abort you will die". If you can see this or another situation as a legitimate scenario for abortion, then you, my friend, are already an abortion proponent, if only in that one circumstance. The question is beyond abortion proponents and opponents and becomes: in what circumstances are abortions justified, and what should the legal environment be to permit them?
C6. The reason we focus on who actually has and wants abortions is because if someone is not considering or does not want an abortion, they are irrelevant to the discussion because they will never have to go through the decision process. When we look at who actually obtains an abortion we can see the circumstances of their issue. Further, coercing an abortion would be another discussion and irrelevant to voluntary abortions.
C7. Because it is morally permissible to abort for any reason before 24 weeks gestation I have not considered further abortion scenarios. Additional scenarios would have been nearly identical and repeated much of the same information.
C8. Abortions after 24 weeks account for 0.08 percent of all abortions in USA (R6). I have combined some of the situations for the sake of brevity. The overall conclusion would have been the same or similar, but would have taken longer to reach if they were separate.
C9. Starting with 24 weeks abortion is morally permissible so long as the intellectual reasons override the physical ones. Intellectual feelings are weighted above physical feelings in utilitarianism. Because of this, while the abortee starting with 24 weeks is afforded some protections, physical protections are still subservient to an aborters intellectual feelings. If the aborter's life is in danger, or for other reasons, she could still be morally justified to an abortion after the abortee develops the ability to register pain.
C10. If the abortee lost moral protections while anesthetized it would imply that anyone or anything anesthetized would lose the physical feeling aspect of moral protections. It is irrelevant whether or not it ACTUALLY feels pain because of anesthesia. What is relevant is if it has developed the ABILITY to feel pain. The quality and ability to feel pain is enough to be afforded protections, whether or not it actually feels pain under anesthesia is irrelevant. Otherwise murder in a painless way of someone sleeping would be treated differently than if they were awake and feeling. Further, killing someone in an induced coma or "put to sleep" (by a doctor) before an operation of some sort would also be permitted to kill so long as they were unable to feel pain. It is the capacity and ability, not whether or not we can artificially suppress that ability. If something was unable to register intellectual or physical feelings and probably never would regain that ability, the criteria could change. But that would be for a different discussion because that touches on euthanasia, ending life support, and other issues that would take more than a side note to discuss fully.
C11. Much of the reasoning to prevent abortions relates to a concept of potentiality: something with the POTENTIAL to become something should be treated AS IF it is ALREADY that thing. But potential and reality are different and cannot legitimately be use interchangeably. Human potential and the quality of being human are different. Something with potential to become human should not be afforded moral protection. The reason it has POTENTIAL is because it still requires time, joining, nurturing, nourishment, and conditions to allow it to POSSIBLY morph and develop into a human. The argument about abortion should be about actual human status, not potential. Human status starts at the earliest when the organism is able to register physical and intellectual feelings which in humans start with physical feelings at the earliest around 24 weeks.
C12. We can see a satchel of seeds. When we go buy them we do not ask for a satchel of the ACTUAL PLANT. We ask for the SEEDS of the plant. We do not consider the SEEDS the PLANT. Real use and actual meaning align, seeds and plants are different. The seeds COULD BECOME a plant, but when they are seeds they are simply seeds with potential. They have the foundation to potentially become a plant given the proper conditions. It has the DNA of a plant. But when it is a seed, it is a seed and nothing more.
Similarly sperm and eggs are not the same as a human. Because of modern technology individual sperm and eggs have potential similar to those already fertilized. There is potential, but that is not the matured thing. If a male masturbates or has a wet dream nobody mourns the loss of millions of potential half humans or tries to freeze it for use later, no, they clean up the mess and if it was unintentional, maybe clean up or throw dirtied items. Sperm is not what it could potentially become, a human, but rather it is simply sperm. Most women have nearly monthly periods for a few decades of their lives. Every month they soak up and discard the discharge: blood and usually one egg cell that could have been used to reproduce. They do not think of this one of millions of egg cells as a lost half human, no, it is a discharge. Wet dreams and periods are not morally wrong acts. We can morally prevent a pregnancy by pulling out or using condoms not because of human potentiality, but rather because the sperm and eggs simply are not human. Both can be extracted, frozen, and saved for artificial fertilization later (R33). Viable sperm can even be extracted through artificial stimulation after the male has died (R34). Actually doing these things would result in an extreme use of our limited resources. We are under no moral pressure to do so because it would severely negatively impact those afforded moral protections. Placing a high weight on something that could potentially BECOME something afforded moral protections could WRONGLY require that we use every ejaculation for reproductive purposes with someone potentially fertile, regardless of who it was, their age, and if they consented. Clearly that is ridiculous as is basing moral worth on potential. We need to base our moral foundations, questions, and decisions on what is ALREADY afforded moral protections.
C13. Some contend that abortion is immoral because it INTERVENES to end a potential or actual life. If intervention is the factor, then using the same line of reasoning it would be permissible to allow an abortee to die after birth by refusing to intervene. Someone may counter by stating it is not intervention that is the issue, but that we should do what we can to prolong and sustain life, even potential life, but potential life is not afforded moral protections.
C14. Conception, fertilization, implantation, quickening, viability, and birth are some stages people claim signify the start of life worthy of protection. They are all flawed because they do not consider sentience — the defining human quality that affords protections as a human, specifically physical and intellectual feelings. Physical feelings afford minimal protections. Intellectual feelings grant full protections and begin to develop after birth and exposure to outside stimuli.
C15. People argue that with conception the quality of humanness is met because of unique and individual DNA. But it needs to implant into the uterine lining to further develop. After implantation people argue that then it is fixed to the aborter and should be protected. But it needs time to develop. Some further argue that with a heartbeat protection should ensue. But it needs time to develop further. With all of these stages there is still an important caveat that something is needed to finish developing. Something needs to occur. Something needs to happen. We never stop developing, but to be afforded the protections of humanness we should at least possess the qualities it entails. We shouldn't be held back by just something else or require something more to fully become human. No, to be afforded the moral protections we must ALREADY have the qualities it entails which at the minimum is possessing physical and intellectual feelings.
C16. The case of the abortee being a mass with unique individual DNA is irrelevant to the abortion discussion. The reason is when someone elects for cloning, which is already plausible (R35) and possible in other animals (R36) then the aborter would be morally justified to do whatever she wants to the abortee at any time, even after birth, because the DNA would NOT be unique. It would, in fact, be the same DNA as the clone donor's. Further, human DNA is a PART of a human. DNA is a piece of a whole but not the whole in itself. The piece on its own is not the same as all of the pieces combined. Nearly each part, each cell on a body, has the complete DNA of that organism (R37). We shed millions of cells daily in the form of hair, skin, and other cells mixed with our excrement. DNA that COULD BECOME a human IS NOT YET human.
C17. As a practical matter nobody recognizes fertilization as the start of life worthy of protection. The primary difference between eggs and sperm after fertilization is that they joined together and are given the name "zygote". Later it becomes an embryo as it multiplies. (R38.) At this point we run into the same issue, it is only something with potential. Millions of sperm (R38) and AT LEAST 66 percent of fertilized cells are flushed out before implantation or spontaneously abort which many people do not even know about (R39). Still births as well as spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) are so common and normal people don't even blink or grieve it as a loss of a loved one. If someone does notice the discharge it is because it is a larger mass in later pregnancy which most people simply flush down the toilet. I have never heard of anyone having a funeral or recognizing the actual embryo which may be one egg and sperm. The reason nobody cares is that: the cells have never created memories; they cannot think; they are not sentient; they have not created the sensation of touch; and the mass cannot register, recognize, or feel any of the five senses. Nobody can connect to the cells at any reciprocal emotional level. We have a separate meaning and use a word for the death of a developing abortee because we do not think of it as the same as when someone born dies. We correctly hear people say, "I had a miscarriage [or still birth, or spontaneous abortion]," not "Oh, [insert name here] died yesterday." Further, the mass of cells can be coaxed to develop into any human body part or cell altogether different than a complete human (R40, R41, R42).
C18. Viability is a flawed standard because science will one day allow offspring to develop entirely outside of a human body in an artificial uterus (womb) (R43). Birth would be non existent. Because of that and in vitro fertilization, raw sperm and eggs are ALREADY scientifically viable today (R33, R34) and it is foreseeable scientific advancements will allow an abortee to be removed from an aborter or never even implanted at any point in the pregnancy and survive. With future scientific advancements it is conceivable viability will come ad infinitum before conception and fertilization, and even before the genetic progeny exist. Because the sperm and egg individually are viable they could be used for offspring which in turn would produce more offspring. A sperm and egg raised in vitro and in test tubes would have the possibility to have a practically unlimited number of offspring which would need to be protected if moral worth was based on viability. We would be morally required to freeze and protect all sperm and eggs because the technology to create an absurdly early viability would exist. Further, the age of viability is dependent on technology and access to healthcare. Better healthcare enables an earlier age of viability. It is also dependent on the costs society is willing to use on the abortee. With tremendous costs expended combined with intensive care a small minority of abortees can survive at an earlier stage. With the best healthcare the rate of pre term abortee survival surpass the rate of failure at about 25 weeks. (R44, R45, R46, R47, R48, R49, R50.) These resources could be better used for something actually afforded moral protection.
C19. A heartbeat is irrelevant to defining life and humanity. People are vegetables and dependent on technology to remain all but dead. People with pacemakers have no heartbeats. A heartbeat is not an indicator of sentience — the defining human quality that affords protections as a human.
C20. Why are some people abortion opponents AND war proponents? Innocent living independent civilians worthy of moral protections are dying. Anywhere from 100,000 to over 1,000,000 people have died in Iraq alone because of the war USA provoked (R51, R52). Furthermore people who believe in an afterlife better than the only life we KNOW we have should embrace abortion and accept that the abortee is given a favor by being aborted, especially if they further believe that from the moment of fertilization the abortee is an individual human that will go to a better afterlife if it dies before a certain age. After all, according to this belief, the soul would go straight to the better place.
(R#.) References:
R1. Organization: National Center for Biotechnology Information. BMJ: British Medical Journal. Title: Can fetuses feel pain? Written by: Stuart W G Derbyshire. Published: 15 April 2006. Accessed July 2013 from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440624/.
R2. Organization: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Title: Fetal Awareness: Review of Research and Recommendations for Practice. Published: March 2010. Accessed July 2013 from: http://www.rcog.org.uk/files/rcog-corp/RCOGFetalAwarenessWPR0610.pdf.
R3. Organization: DISCOVER Magazine. Title: When Does a Fetus Feel Pain? Written by: Elise Kleeman. Published: 1 December 2005. Accessed July 2013 from: http://discovermagazine.com/2005/dec/fetus-feel-pain.
R4. Organization: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Title: Frequently Asked Questions, FAQ043, Special Procedures. Published: October 2011. Accessed July 2013 from: http://www.acog.org/~/media/For%20Patients/faq043.pdf?dmc=1&ts=20130717T1855082337.
R5. Organization: Amnesty International. Title: Deadly Delivery: The Maternal Health Care Crisis in the United States. One Year Update: Spring 2011. Published: Spring 2011. Accessed July 2013 from: http://amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR51/108/2011/en/d4a19d9a-5804-4033-b075-9e2b8785471d/amr511082011en.pdf.
R6. Organization: ThirdWay. Title: The Demographics of Abortion: The Great Divide Between Abortion Rhetoric and Abortion Reality. Written by: Jim Kessler with Jessica Dillon, Jon Kott, and James Solomon. Published 30 August 2005. Accessed July 2013 from: http://content.thirdway.org/publications/17/Third_Way_Policy_Memo_-_The_Demographics_of_Abortion.pdf.
R7. Organization: Planned Parenthood. Title: The Emotional Effects of Induced Abortion. Lead author: Jon Knowles. Revised by: Deborah Golub. Published: 18 January 2013. Accessed July 2013 from: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/resources/research-papers/emotional-effects-induced-abortion-6137.htm.
R8. Organization: Centers for Disease Control. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Division of Reproductive Health. Title: Abortion Surveillance --- United States, 2003. Written by: Lilo T. Strauss, Sonya B. Gamble, Wilda Y. Parker, Douglas A. Cook, Suzanne B. Zane, and Saeed Hamdan. Published: 24 November 2006. Accessed July 2013 from: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1.htm.
R9. Organization: American Psychological Association, Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion. Title: Report of the Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion. Written by: Brenda Major, Mark Appelbaum, Linda Beckman, Mary Ann Dutton, Nancy Felipe Russo, and Carolyn West. Published: 2008. Accessed July 2013 from: http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/abortion/mental-health.pdf.
R10. Organization: Columbia Law School. Culture, Health & Sexuality. Title: Conceptualising abortion stigma. Written by: Anuradha Kumar, Leila Hessini, and Ellen M.H. Mitchell. Published: August 2009. Accessed July 2013 from: http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/genderandsexualitylawblog/files/2012/04/Conceptualizing-Abortion-Stigma-2009-11.pdf.
R11. Organization: Disability Online. Title: Abortion - emotional issues. Published: 10 October 2001. Accessed July 2013 from: http://hnb.dhs.vic.gov.au/dsonline/dsarticles.nsf/pages/Abortion_emotional_issues.
R12. Organization: MedlinePlus. Title: Miscarriage. Updated: 8 November 2011. Accessed July 2013 from: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001488.htm.
R13. Organization: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children's Bureau. Title: Trends in Foster Care and Adoption- FY 2002-FY 2011. Published: 2012. Accessed July 2013 from: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/trends_fostercare_adoption.pdf.
R14. Organization: AdoptUSKids. U.S. Children's Bureau. Title: Meet the Children. Copyright: 2002-2013. Accessed July 2013 from: http://www.adoptuskids.org/meet-the-children.
R15. Organization: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children's Bureau. Title: Annual Report to Congress on State Child Welfare Expenditures reported on the CFS-101. Published: 31 December 2012. Accessed July 2013 from: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cfs_101_report_to_congress_for_2012.pdf.
R16. This is a list of multiple reports. Organization: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children's Bureau. Title: Child Welfare Outcomes. Accessed July 2013 from: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/research-data-technology/statistics-research/cwo.
R17. This is a list of multiple reports. Organization: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children's Bureau. Title: Child Maltreatment. Accessed July 2013 from: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/research-data-technology/statistics-research/child-maltreatment.
R18. Organization: Guttmacher Institute: International Family Planning Perspectives. Title: Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries. Written by: Akinrinola Bankole, Susheela Singh, and Taylor Haas. Published: September 1998. Accessed July 2013 from: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html.
R19. Organization: Guttmacher Institute: Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. Title: Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives. Written by: Lawrence B. Finer, Lori F. Frohwirth, Lindsay A. Dauphinee, Susheela Singh, and Ann M. Moore. Published: September 2005. Accessed July 2013 from: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.html.
R20. Organization: Orlando Women's Center. Title: Abortion Statistics. Accessed July 2013 from: http://www.womenscenter.com/abortion_stats.html.
R21. Organization: Health Central. Title: Consanguinity – Inbreeding. Copyright: 2013. Accessed July 2013 from: http://www.healthcentral.com/encyclopedia/408/219.html.
R22. Organization: Guardian. Title: Ireland abortion policy under scrutiny after woman's death. Written by: Henry McDonald and Ben Quinn. Published: 14 November 2012. Accessed July 2013 from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/14/ireland-abortion-scrutiny-death.
R23. Organization: The New York Times. Title: Legal or Not, Abortion Rates Compare. Written by: Elisabeth Rosenthal. Published: 12 October 2007. Accessed July 2013 from: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html.
R24. Organization: National Center for Biotechnology Information: Bulletin of the World Health Organization. Title: Making abortions safe: a matter of good public health policy and practice. Written by: M. Berer. Published: 2000. Copyright: World Health Organization, 2000. Accessed July 2013 from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2560758/pdf/10859852.pdf.
R25. Organization: Reproductive Health Matters. Title: National Laws and Unsafe Abortion: The Parameters of Change. Written by: Marge Berer. Published: November 2004. Accessed July 2013 from: http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0968-8080/PIIS0968808004240241.pdf.
R26. Organization: Guttmacher Institute. The Lancet. Title: Induced abortion: incidence and trends worldwide from 1995 to 2008. Written by: G Sedgh and I H Shah. Published: 19 January 2012. Accessed July 2013 from: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/Sedgh-Lancet-2012-01.pdf.
R27. Organization: Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada. Title: Unsafe Abortion: Global and Regional Incidence, Trends, Consequences, and Challenges. Written by: Iqbal Shah and Elisabeth Åhman. Published: December 2009. Accessed July 2013 from: http://www.jogc.com/abstracts/full/200912_WomensHealth_1.pdf.
R28. Organization: World Health Organization. Title: Unsafe abortion: Global and regional estimates of the incidence of unsafe abortion and associated mortality in 2003. Fifth edition. Copyright: 2007. Accessed July 2013 from: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241596121_eng.pdf.
R29. Organization: World Health Organization. The Lancet. Title: Unsafe abortion: the preventable pandemic*. Written by: David A Grimes, Janie Benson, Susheela Singh, Mariana Romero, Bela Ganatra, Friday E Okonofua, and Iqbal H Shah. Published: October 2006. Accessed July 2013 from: http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/general/lancet_4.pdf.
R30. Organization: Department of Health. Title: Statistical Bulletin: Abortion Statistics, England and Wales: 2006. Copyright: Crown, 2007. Published: June 2006. Accessed July 2013 from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130107105354/http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/dh_075705.pdf.
R31. Organization: National Geographic News. Title: Feeling No Pain: New Form of Rare Gene Disorder Decoded. Written by: Mason Inman. Published: 13 December 2006. Accessed July 2013 from: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061213-pain.html.
R32. Organization: Pro-Choice Action Network. Title: When the Anti-Choice Choose. Written by: Joyce Arthur. Copyright: September 2000. Accessed July 2013 from: http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/anti-tales.shtml.
R33. Organization: Houston Fertility Institute. Title: Frozen Embryo Transfer: Embryo Cryopreservation and Frozen Embryo Transfer (FET). Copyright: 2013. Accessed July 2013 from: http://www.hfi-ivf.com/frozen-embryo-transfer.html.
R34. Organization: Anorkey. Title: When is Posthumous Sperm Retrieval Ethically Permissible and What are the Ethical Implications of Conceiving a Child This Way? Published: 30 April 2013. Accessed July 2013 from: http://anorkey.com/when-is-posthumous-sperm-retrieval-ethically-permissible-and-what-are-the-ethical-implications-of-conceiving-a-child-this-way/.
R35. Organization: Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity. Title: Human Cloning. Written by: John F. Kilner. Post date: 15 November 2002. Accessed July 2013 from: http://cbhd.org/content/human-cloning.
R36. Organization: National Human Genome Research Institute. Title: Cloning. Last Reviewed: 12 June 2012. Accessed July 2013 from: https://www.genome.gov/25020028.
R37. Organization: Genetics Home Reference. Title: What is DNA? Published: 22 July 2013. Accessed July 2013 from: http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/basics/dna.
R38. Organization: The Visible Embryo. Title: The Visible Embryo. Copywright: 2006. Accessed July 2013 from: http://www.visembryo.com/baby/index.html.
R39. Organization: DISCOVER. Title: The Good Egg. Written by: Stephen S. Hall. Published: 29 May 2004. Accessed July 2013 from: http://discovermagazine.com/2004/may/cover.
R40. Organization: EuroStemCell. Title: FAQ about stem cells and regenerative medicine - Embryonic stem cells and research. Reviewed by: Elena Cattaneo. Last updated: 27 August 2012. Accessed July 2013 from: http://www.eurostemcell.org/stem-cell-faq/embryonic-stem-cells-and-research.
R41. Organization: EuroStemCell. Title: Embryonic stem cells: where do they come from and what can they do? Created by: Kate Blair. Reviewed by: Jenny Nichols and Austin Smith. Last updated: 28 June 2011. Accessed July 2013 from: http://www.eurostemcell.org/factsheet/embryonic-stem-cells-where-do-they-come-and-what-can-they-do.
R42. Organization: EuroStemCell. Title: Realizing the potential of embryonic stem cells: how far have we come? Written by: Peter Andrews. Published: 1 February 2012. Accessed July 2013 from: http://www.eurostemcell.org/commentanalysis/realizing-potential-embryonic-stem-cells-how-far-have-we-come.
R43. Organization: Popular Science: PopSci. Title: Artificial Wombs: Will we grow babies outside their mothers' bodies? Written by: Gretchen Reynolds. Posted: 1 August 2005. Accessed July 2013 from: http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2005-08/artificial-wombs.
R44. Organization: National Center for Biotechnology Information: PubMed. Title: Limits of fetal viability and its enhancement. Written by: Breborowicz GH. Published: 5 January 2001. Accessed July 2013 from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11753511.
R45. Organization: BBC. Title: Early baby survival 'unchanged'. Last updated: 9 May 2008. Accessed July 2013 from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7390522.stm.
R46. Organization: BBC. Title: Prem baby survival rates revealed. Written by: Fergus Walsh. Last updated: 11 April 2008. Accessed July 2013 from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7340288.stm.
R47. Organization: National Center for Biotechnology Information: PubMed. Title: Consensus statements on the borderlands of neonatal viability: from uncertainty to grey areas. Written by: Vavasseur C, Foran A, and Murphy JF. Published: September 2007. Accessed July 2013 from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17955714.
R48. Organization: ABC News. Title: Life at 21 Weeks: Immature Lungs and a Handful of Fragile Skin and Pain. Written by: Susan Donaldson James. Published: 21 February 2007. Accessed July 2013 from: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2890242.
R49. Organization: PEDIATRICS. Title: Medical Staff Guidelines for Periviability Pregnancy Counseling and Medical Treatment of Extremely Premature Infants. Written by: Joseph W. Kaempf, Mark Tomlinson, Cindy Arduza, Shelly Anderson, Betty Campbell, Linda A. Ferguson, Mara Zabari, and Valerie T. Stewart. Published: 1 January 2006. Accessed July 2013 from: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/117/1/22.full.
R50. Organization: Informa Healthcare. Title: Obstetrician-gynecologists' practices regarding preterm birth at the limit of viability. Written by: Maria A. Morgan, Robert L. Goldenberg, and Jay Schulkin. Published: 2008. Accessed July 2013 from: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14767050701866971.
R51. I know, rule number one: never use Wikipedia! This is the only time I used them because of the wide range of numbers used for the deaths from the Iraq War.
Organization: Wikipedia. Title: Casualties of the Iraq War. Written by: Who knows! Last updated: 18 July 2013. Accessed July 2013 from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War.
R52. Organization: Wired. Title: Afghanistan, Iraq Wars Killed 132,000 Civilians, Report Says. Written by: Spencer Ackerman. Published: 29 June 2011. Accessed July 2013 from: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/afghanistan-iraq-wars-killed-132000-civilians-report-says.