Topic: Abortion

Summary: Should abortion be permitted?

Context
The issue of abortion is one of the most contentious, and emotive dilemmas faced by modern societies. The question
is whether one should allow the termination of a child whilst it is in its mother’s womb. For some, the question is
even more fundamental: at what stage is the foetus in the womb to be regarded as a child? The battle-lines are drawn
between strict, religious (‘pro-life’) arguments (that it is never permissible), and those (‘pro-choice’) that emphasise
the mother’s right to choose as the primary concern. Whilst abortion has been accepted by the American state since
the land-mark Roe vs. Wade case in the early 1970s, this is by no means a reflection of universal agreement – either
international or within America itself – as many Western countries still have considerable restrictions on abortion.
For example, the Irish position has softened only recently, and the Catholic Church steadfastly refuses to change its
resolutely pro-life stance in the face of criticism from Women’s and other lobby-groups.

pros cons

Women should have control over their

own bodies; they have to carry the
Of course, human-rights should be
child during pregnancy and undergo
respected, but it is never the case that
child-birth. No-one else carries the
a person has a right to make a decision
child for her; it will be her
with no reference to the rights and
responsibility alone, and thus she
wishes of others. In this case, one
should have the sole right to decide.
might wonder about the rights of the
These are important events in a
father to have a say in the fate of the
woman’s life, and if she does not want
foetus. More importantly, though, pro-
to go through the full nine months and
choice groups actively ignore the most
subsequent birth, then she should have
important right – the child’s right to
the right to choose not to do so. There
life. What is more important than life?
are few – if any – other cases where
All other rights, including the mother’s
something with such profound
right to choice, surely stem from a
consequences is forced upon a human
prior right to life; if you have no right
being against her/his will. To appeal to
to any life, then how do you have a
the child’s right to life is just circular –
right to an autonomous one? The
whether a foetus has rights or not, or
woman may ordinarily have a
can really be called a ‘child’, is exactly
reasonable right to control her own
what is at issue. Everyone agrees that
body, but this does not confer on her
children have rights and shouldn’t be
the entirely separate (and
killed. Not everyone agrees that
insupportable) right to decide whether
foetuses of two, four, eight, or even
another human lives or dies.
twenty weeks are children (see point
3).

Not only is banning abortion a problem
in theory, offending against a woman’s
right to choose, it is also a practical
problem. Enforcing an abortion ban
would require a quite degrading and
inhumane treatment of those women
Unborn children cannot articulate their
right to life; theirs are vulnerable lives
and as such must be protected. Many
laws have difficulties pertaining to
implementation, but these do not
diminish the strength of the principle
who wished to have their foetus
terminated. Moreover, if pregnant
women travelled abroad, they would be
able to have an abortion in a country
where it was legal. Either the state
takes the draconian measure of
restricting freedom of movement, or it
must admit that its law is unworkable
in practice and abolish it. The ‘third
way’ of tacitly accepting foreign
terminations would render hypocritical
the much-vaunted belief in the sanctity
of life. In addition, the demand for
abortions will always exist; making
abortion illegal, will simply drive it
underground and into conditions where
the health and safety of the woman
might be put at risk.
Are we really talking about a ‘life?’ At
what point does a life begin? Is
terminating a foetus, which can neither
feel nor think and is not conscious of
its own ‘existence,’ really
commensurable with the killing of a
‘person?’ There rightly are restrictions
on the time, within which a termination
can take place, before a foetus does
develop these defining, human
characteristics. If you affirm that
human life is a quality independent of,
and prior to thought and feeling, then
you leave yourself the awkward task of
explaining what truly ‘human’ life is.
There are cases in which it is
necessary to terminate a pregnancy,
lest the mother and/or the child die. In
such cases of medical emergency and
in the interest of saving life, surely it is
permissible to abort the foetus.
behind them: people will kill other
people, regardless of your legislating
against it, but it does not follow that
you shouldn’t legislate against it. Even
though the Netherlands had more
liberal drugs’ laws than in England,
this did not lead, and nor should it
have led, to a similar liberalisation
here. Whether we should actively
restrain would-be ‘abortion tourists’
from travelling is a separate question,
but one which can be answered in the
affirmative given what is at stake. In
ordinary circumstances such a move
would indeed be draconian, but where
a restriction in someone’s freedom is
the price to pay for protecting an
innocent life, then so be it.
The question of what life is can
certainly be answered: it is sacred,
inviolable and absolute. It is
unquestionable that the foetus, at
whatever stage of development, will
inevitably develop the traits to which
you refer. The unborn child will have
every ability, and every opportunity
that you yourself have, if you give him
the opportunity. The time-restrictions
on termination had to be changed
once, when it was discovered that
feeling developed earlier than first
thought, so they are hardly impeccable
safe-guards behind which to hide.
Whilst these are different
circumstances, and such medical
emergencies are tragic, it is by no
means obvious that the abortion is to
be performed. The ‘mother vs. child’
dilemma is one which defies solution,
and aborting to preserve one of the
lives sets a dangerous precedent that it
is acceptable to kill a person in order
to save another. This is a clear, and
unpalatable, case of treating a human-
 being as a means to an end.

It is not just medical emergency that

presents compelling grounds for
termination. Woman, and in some
cases girls, who have been raped
should not have to suffer the additional
torment of being pregnant with the
product of that ordeal. To force a
woman to produce a living, constant
reminder of that act is unfair on both
mother and child.
Whilst an appalling crime has been
committed, is it the fault of the unborn
child? The answer is, of course, no.
Denying someone life, because of the
circumstances of their conception is as
unfair as anything else imaginable.

What right does anyone have to

Finally, due to advances in medical
deprive another of life on the grounds
technology it is possible to determine
that he deems that life as not worth
during pregnancy whether the child
living? This arrogant and sinister
will be disabled. In cases of severe
presumption is impossible to justify,
disability, in which the child would
given that many people with
have a very short, very painful and
disabilities lead fulfilling lives. What
tragic life, it is surely the right course
disabilities would be regarded as the
of action to allow the parents to choose
water-shed between life and
a termination. This avoids both the
termination? The practise of eugenics
suffering of the parents and of the
is roundly condemned by all civilised
child.
countries.

motions
This House Would Allow Abortion on Demand
This House Believes in the Woman’s Right to Choose