Abortion: only opinions

First and foremost, I do not believe that frivolous abortions should be performed. I think this act shows callousness of soul and smallness of character. I understand that there are many cases where abortion is acceptable and maybe even necessary.

We have been discussing ethics without regard to specific cases up to this point, but we are now moving onto a very specific, very controversial topic. This topic is abortion and the rights of a fetus. First of all, I think we need to lay out why this topic is being discussed and why it is such a tough issue. Many philosophers that I know consider an act to be immoral if that act affects the health of another in a negative way. There is an exception to that, an exception that I don't think many scholars would disagree with. For the survival and eventual birth of a fetus, that fetus must parasitize the host mother for nine months. Whether or not the mother wants the baby there, her health is diminished by the presence of another organism inside her. This, however, does not mean that her overall fitness has been diminished, as she has the chance to pass on her genetic material (getting off topic now). So the question becomes, is it okay for the host mother to destroy the parasite fetus?

Now how many of us actually look at pregnancy as indicated above. Very few, I would assume, but that is besides our purpose. All we can look at for this discussion is the case that is being presented, and do so as objectively as possible. Let's move on to the actual discussion of abortion and rights associated with the fetus. It seems reasonable to believe that any person who is considered alive has the basic right to life. It also seems reasonable to believe that any person who is dead no longer has that basic right to life. As it stands now, in law, the death of a person is based solely on the subjective judgement of a doctor. From what I understand, a doctor will pronounce someone dead if there is no longer brain function. So it is reasonable to consider a person with no brain function dead. If we take this as our definition of a person who enjoys the right to life, we can make some arguments. The first argument stems from the fact that the fetus gains primitive brain function within the first trimester of a pregnancy. If the fetus has some brain function, it is considered a living person as the law is written now. If the fetus is a living person, then it is reasonable that the fetus should enjoy the right to not be killed unjustly. We must explain this further, however, because pregnancy is a special case as to the definition of unjustly.

We have already discussed how a fetus gained the right to life. We need to discuss whether or not a woman has the right to get an abortion. We can look at this in a couple of different ways, but one seems more obvious than the others based on our definitions to this point. If infringing upon anothers rights can ever justify death, then abortion should be considered reasonable. This means that we must define what justifies murder. Are there ever circumstances in which murder is considered ethical? I would say there are circumstances, such as preservation of my own life. If a person is to the point of killing me, am I justified in killing them first? I would say that this is reasonable to consider just. Therefore, if a fetus is to the point of killing the host mother, it is just for the fetus to be killed first. If I am deprived of food, but not past the point of starvation, am I justified in killing those keeping the nourishment from me? I cannot answer yes to this statement. I believe that I can only kill when it is a situation where I have no doubt that it is either another human or myself. This situation fits well with most pregnancies. Many mothers will face hardships by carrying a baby, but not to the extent where murder is merited.