An Argument in Favor of Abortion

Cassandra Rohm

PHL-161-WA-P

12/8/2020
 The control of women’s rights to their own reproductive health has been a topic of

conversation for decades. There have been numerous court battles fought over the subject with

the most notable being Roe v. Wade which affirmed that it was a constitutional right for women

to have access to safe, legal abortions (Roe v. Wade: The Constitutional Right to Access Safe,

Legal Abortion, 2020). Since that case in 1973, there have been many attempts to overturn the

court’s decision and once again outlaw abortions. The popular vote among Americans is that

women should have the freedom to make their own choices regarding their health which includes

terminating a pregnancy. Naturally, there are still many opposed to this who believe that the

sanctity of life far surpasses the woman’s right to her own body.

Much of the argument against abortions is deeply rooted in religious beliefs. Christians

often recite Bible verses when arguing that abortion is murder and a sin in God’s eye. There are

others as well that believe that ending the life of a fetus is morally wrong. Currently there are

twenty-six countries in the world that absolutely prohibit women from obtaining an abortion

(The World's Abortion Laws, 2020). In these countries, women can face time in prison should it

be found of that they terminated a pregnancy. Progress is being made daily in regard to a

woman’s right to her own reproductive health and the narrative changes every day. A woman

has the right to control her own health which includes having an abortion if she so wishes.

To better understand this argument, one should first work to gain an understanding of the

various approaches to ethics. Normative ethics focuses primarily on how an individual should

act and what is considered right and wrong (Dunst, 2020). There are four approaches that are

categorized under normative ethics: virtue ethics, deontology, consequentialism, and ethics of

care. When considering the argument around abortion from the approach of virtue ethics, one

may focus on the “good” of the person involved. Virtue ethics looks at the character of an
individual and whether they are good or bad. In the case of abortion, if a woman is making the

decision to terminate her pregnancy because testing has shown that the child would suffer after

birth before it died, her decision would be considered virtuous and thus morally acceptable from

this view. On the other hand, if a woman is making the choice because she wants to maintain the

freedom of a childless lifestyle, this may be viewed as a vice and thus not acceptable.

Deontology focuses on the moral duty of a person and whether they follow certain rules

or principles (Dunst, 2020). This is often referred to as a code of conduct. In this regard,

abortion would be morally wrong to a person who has spent their life devoted to their religion

and thus believes that every life is sacred. The question of the morality of abortion to an

individual who does not carry a strict code in regard to the sanctity of life would not see

termination as a problem and thus would likely be morally unbothered by the decision.

The quality of the outcome is what determines morality when the discussion is

considered from a consequentialistic approach. Consequentialism is centered around the notion

of maximizing the good and minimizing the bad (Dunst, 2020). It is similar to the opinion of

virtue ethics in that if an abortion is chosen because it would result in less suffering for the child

after birth, the bad is minimized. On the other hand, if a child is born into a family that does not

want him or her and they live a life of abuse and neglect, then the choice to keep the pregnancy

would become morally wrong because there was a chance to minimize the bad that was not

taken.

Another aspect of ethics that can used to determine the morality of an argument is the

doctrine of the double effect. The doctrine of the double effect refers to a concept in which a

decision is made to produce a favorable outcome while unintentionally causing a separate,

unfavorable outcome (Foot, 1967). An often-used example to better explain this concept is to
consider a speeding train which is set to kill five people on the tracks. The conductor has an

option to change the trains path of travel to another track, but on this track is one person who

would be killed. Some people say that the conductor should change course to kill the one person

and save five lives. The doctrine of the double effect is at play in this scenario because although

the intention is to save five people, the unfavorable outcome is that another person dies. The

same principle can be applied to a woman who is pregnant and would die if she gave birth to the

fetus she is gestating. The pregnancy would have to be terminated to save the woman’s life, but

as a result the fetus would die instead. Although the death of the fetus is not the intended

outcome of the situation, it would be an unfavorable result.

A large aspect that greatly influences the discussion regarding abortion is the

determination of personhood. Personhood is a concept that is often used to determine if

something is a person or not (Center for Health Ethics: Concept of Personhood, n.d.). Many

people who are “pro-life” or antiabortion argue that a fetus is a person and thus is entitled to the

same rights as any other human being, including the right to live. Those who are against

abortion believe that life begins the moment that an egg is fertilized by a sperm and develops

into a zygote (Cathy Ruse, 2011). A zygote is the first formation of cells that occurs in the

fallopian tubes before the embryo further develops into a fetus after implanting into the uterine

wall. Antiabortionists argue that because these cells are human, they should be treated just like

any other person. Websites like “Pro Life Action League” help to try to further their agenda by

citing reasons that abortion should be outlawed. An often used argument is that if the child is not

wanted by the mother, that other avenues are available such as adoption for the child to live with

a loving family (Getting Help, 2020). As previously stated, a major driving force in the
argument against abortion are the beliefs of various religions. Many religious people will cite

the Bible as a way to say that abortion is a sin.

While all these points are valid and reasonable whether because people are entitled to

their own opinion or because fact has been stated, the end argument in regard to abortion is that

everyone is control of their own body and their own life. People should not have others’ beliefs

forced upon them because the opposing side says that it is the right thing to do. Prior to Roe v.

Wade women in desperate situations would preform dangerous self-abortion on themselves and

many of them lost their ability to conceive or died as a result (Roe v. Wade: The Constitutional

Right to Access Safe, Legal Abortion, 2020). A woman who has been raped and is now pregnant

with that man’s child has the right to not have to relive the trauma of her rape for nine months as

she carries a fetus to term. The irresponsible sixteen-year-old should not be forced to give up her

dreams because of one night. And the wife about to leave her abusive husband should not have

to bring a child into a dangerous home.

The decision to have an abortion is no one’s problem except the person who is carrying

the fetus. Those who argue that children will be able to find loving homes fail to remember the

almost 500,000 children living within the foster system in the United States (Pennsylvania State

Resource Family Association Hearts and Homes, 2020). As harsh as it may sound, abortion is

part of the answer to this high number of children without homes. Forcing women to have

children that they do not want leads to these children falling into the system. There are even

further reaching implications to this in regard to the quality of life that these children have as

well.

No woman ever wants to be put into the situation where she must decide whether to

terminate a pregnancy or carry the fetus to term. It is a heavy decision to not be taken lightly,
but it is still her decision, nonetheless. People imposing their beliefs and views onto another

person impinges on that person’s own freedoms. Abortion may be something that most women

would personally choose against, but it is a choice that should be available to them.
 Works Cited

Cathy Ruse, R. S. (2011, May 25). The Best Pro-Life Arguments for Secular Audiences. Family

Research Council. Washington, D.C., United States of America.

Center for Health Ethics: Concept of Personhood. (n.d.). Retrieved from University of Missouri

School of Medicine: https://medicine.missouri.edu/

Brian Dunst. (2020). Introduction to Ethics: Module 1:Intro, Branches, Normative, Religion,

Science. Personal Collection of Brain Dunst, Westmoreland County Community College,

Youngwood, PA.

Foot, P. (1967). The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect. Oxford Review.

Getting Help. (2020). Retrieved from Pro Life Action League : https://prolifeaction.org/

Pennsylvania State Resource Family Association Hearts and Homes. (2020). Retrieved from

Pennsylvania State Resource Family Association: https://www.psrfa.org/

Roe v. Wade: The Constitutional Right to Access Safe, Legal Abortion. (2020). Retrieved from

Planned Parenthood: https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/

The World's Abortion Laws. (2020). Retrieved from Reproductive Rights:

https://reproductiverights.org/