The moral question of abortion and right to life:

The following human rights argument is going to be utilized to show the reoccurring debate over abortion by
first demonstrating its relevance with examples of countries. Then I shall attempt to explain the two ends of
the spectrum, the pro-life, and pro-choice sides of the quarrel. I finalize my work by revealing my own
perspective and opinion about the topic.

The question of abortion has been associated with the question of the right to life, since this is a moral
question, there is no single-cut answer to this issue (Wacks, 2015). The debate on abortion in the US serves as
a good example to show what forces take part in this argument. Feminists are usually associated with
emphasizing the right for a woman to control her own body, whilst, on the other hand, Christian groups see
abortion as a murder of the fetus (Wacks, 2015). Proponents and opponents of this issue weigh one in terms
of the other and then try to argue based on that, in most of the countries of Europe, abortion can be done
until a certain time period of the pregnancy under prescribed conditions (Wacks, 2015). This debate draws
more serious and numerous moral questions on the agenda, like how to think of a fetus, if it is regarded as a
complete human being, how it is justified to end its life, or furthermore what could be done in terms of
unwanted pregnancy, or when she is expected to have a severely handicapped child (Wacks, 2015).

I continue with the Polish example, which outraged serious conflicts at the international level in recent months
by almost fully restricting the possibility for women for abortions. Our main task is to focus on the moral
question, but I believe it is more than crucial to show in some sentences that this debate is much more than
that. Due to the above mentioned, now I shall try to use the study carried out by Koralewska and Zielińska
(2021) to conclude that the question of abortion reaches far more realms than morality and that this
problematized issue is heavily enforced by discourses, mainly political ones. Their research was developed on
selecting certain right-wing Polish articles to see the existing discourses playing part in making Poland having
the most restrictive laws against abortion in Europe.The two sides of the debate are no different here than in
the US, the Church itself was a key actor indirectly affecting the political field, whilst the opponents are formed
by feminists and progressive groups. Abortion is seen as criminal conduct there, which is also discriminatory
due to ending someone’s life because of an expected „syndrome”, those who have been under abortion are
labeled as murderers. Abortion means a challenge to human rights such as the right to life or non-
discrimination. Second, they shape society’s opinion on traditional grounds, such an abortion is a threat that
crumbles women mentally since they are ’made to nurture children’, it is embedded into themselves naturally.
Lastly, people who have been under abortion are seen as imposing difficulty for maintaining the Polish culture,
whilst feminists defending abortion rights are seen as Westernized others who pose a danger to the domestic
traditions. This study is essential for us since it clearly examines how much women are seen as a reproductive
machine of humanity in the eyes of society, and are expected to put the fetus above their own rights
(Koralewska & Zielińska, 2021).

Now we turned back to the word fetus, but how do we exactly define the fetus? Is it a fully-fledged human
being or is it something less? Those who are on the side of anti-abortion radically oppose thinking of the fetus
as something less than a human being, thus abortion equals intentional killing. However, let’s get a deeper
view of their perspectives by analyzing the study conducted by Lee & George (2005), who explained why
abortion is never justifiable, and always immoral. First, it gets to the depth of Biology to state that the embryo
is a completely distinct cell from any cell of the mother or the father, the embryo is a human, whole orgasm,
and can not be compared to sex cells nor it can be related to somatic cells. In short, the embryo is a complete
human, so in abortion what is killed is a human being.
It furthermore goes against 3 arguments used by those who are not opposed to this medical procedure:
The first one makes a difference between person and human being, according to them this is a false
perception, humans are physical organisms thus can not be identified with consciousness, to have reasoning
takes years of development. If you destroy the embryo at an early stage you destroy what it would have
developed into a self-aware person, thus being who is ’you’ came to be at conception.
The second argument admits the claim that you are formed at conception but says you are valuable and
applicable for rights much later when you become a person, being a person is an accidental attribute. The
accidental attributes added to being a human individual make you a person, thus valuable for rights. They
claim that as a physical organ you came to be at conception but we become persons later in life. Lee & George
(2005) argues that the right to life is a fundamental right that is also applicable for the embryonic status, you
do not exist solely in certain stages of your existence. To have rights is identified by being able to engage in
higher mental functions is problematic in three ways: an infant can not immediately have the capacity to do
mental functions, also this capacity develops through stages of your life as you mature, third, it shall not be
the case that some humans and not others possess some special kinds of values such as having the right to
life. In virtue of being a human you should be granted basic rights from the point you are conceived not based
on your accidental attributes.
The last debate challenged the view of the bodily right argument who are not against abortion. They claim
that the fetus has the right to life, but nothing justifies it has the right to occupy a mother’s body for life
support. The responsibility towards the child is not voluntarily assumed. Lee & George (2005) grant that there
are some unitentional-killing but those are rare cases, such as when a mother has to go through a life-saving
surgery meanwhile she is pregnant, and that procedure causes the fetus to fade away, that is labeled as
unintentional. They claim you are by virtue responsible for the child due to biological links, just as you are
ought to take care of your siblings and parents. Those who support the bodily rights argument claim you have
no obligation as long as you do not voluntarily assume them, but Lee & George (2005) think otherwise. They
goes that far to say that even if parents do not choose to take care of the child, adoption is possible. The fetus
is not causing any harm being in the womb of a woman, they have a responsibility to give birth to that child,
just like fathers have an obligation to help the family. In any case, the burden of carrying a child creates much
less harm than going under abortion and killing a human being.
In this pro-life view, abortion should be illegal since it is unjust and immoral, no matter what this medical
procedure is inhumane. (Lee & George 2005)
In the following, I would like to bring a counterargument of why abortion should not be restricted and made
completely illegal. Interestingly, I am going to use an article written in 1979 to do so. I believe this shows how
much the debate over abortion is running in the same circles, with the same points of view. Owing to that an
article written in the 20th century can give an answer to a radical disagreement over abortion written in the
21st century.
The following article by Tanya Luhrmann (1979) operates on the other side of the spectrum and introduces
interesting claims regarding why abortion should not be restricted. This article was written some years later
after when the Supreme Court declared that the unborn fetus did not have any constitutional rights until the
trimester, which triggered the pro-life activists to claim that the mother and the fetus should have the same
constitutional rights.
She argues, however, that the fetus is not legally a member of society since it only responds to things via its
mother. It is also hard to look behind the fact why the fetus has the right to enforce you to support it for the
rest of its life. One might say since you know what you were doing, you might as well bear the responsibilities
of it, but the thing is that we have to take into account the possibility of faulty contraception. An important
contribution in the case of faulty contraception to question the liability of the men, not many would be willing
to take care of a child who was conceived this way, but we put the moral burden on the mother that she must
carry it.
She also draws attention to the fact that not just in extreme cases of rape made by family members, it is solely
reasonable to save the mother. With rape you try to save from incest and the child from facing psychologically
unbearable life, however, this psychological burden can happen to an unwanted child, too. If we want to
measure abortion on the inner qualities of life, abortion is rather a necessity than a murder. It is also morally
not justifiable to expect the mother to carry the child in exchange for losing her own life.
To further go with the quality argument it is also said to be true that pregnancy should be a conscious decision
when a normal quality of life can be provided for the child. Many who have gone under abortion later on in
life had children when they were emotionally and financially ready for it.
To sum up, abortion here is not a crime rather a possibility for the child not to be born into chaos and a chance
for the woman not to be fighting to provide a quality of life for the infant when she is not capable, nor ready
to do so (Luhrman, 1979).
I am going to finalize my work by demonstrating my point of view about this debate. As a woman, I believe we
have the freedom of choice to decide over our bodies. I reckon the literature I introduced for the anti-abortion,
part which was written by two male figures, shows how little empathy men can feel towards an unwanted
pregnancy, after all, they do not have to do anything with that child if they claim it is not theirs even though
genetics show the truth. As much as I liked that at least they mentioned the obligation towards the father as
well, I question who can impose the obligation on the father?
Not to mention most anti-abortion laws are made by white-elite men politicians who never asked the opinion
of women. I am not only talking about the rights for women to have a chance to decide over their bodies but
on the other hand, I reason for the unborn child’s sake. In case when even at the stage of being an embryo
you can already see how mentally or/and physically handicapped the child will become, the embryo itself can
not tell you that it does not want to suffer for some years on Earth then die in pain, in this situation the mother
is the one who has to decide. After all, how the state is going to compensate me for making me give birth to a
person who has no capacity to live on its own, thus it caused me to leave my job and all my public life behind?
Nor the state is going to give me any help if it made me carry a child whom I can not take care of financially. It
probably not even punish anyone if I claim I was a victim of rape. I would go that far as to say that expecting
me to carry a child that poses a threat to my own well-being and health is completely absurd.
I believe trying to reason over these things with biological background makes no sense since we are talking
about a moral question. If a father has the chance, which he clearly has, to step out from an unwanted
pregnancy, then the woman has the chance not to carry out that unwanted pregnancy, meanwhile the fetus
has the right for a healthy life with quality attached to it. Since there might be a living human inside you but
can not tell you if she or he wants that life that you can provide for him or her, it is the duty of the mother to
decide. The mother is an emotional, rational human being who is more than a reproductive organism of
society, it does not look at the interest of society, but most importantly looks at the interest of the unborn
fetus.
Owing to these reasons, in my point of view, abortion should be a universally accessable right for everyone.

Bibliography:
Luhrman, T. (1979, October 25). The Pro-Choice Argument. The Harvard Crimson. Retrieved May 7, 2021, from
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1979/10/25/the-pro-choice-argument-pthere-are-those/
Koralewska, I., & Zielińska, K. (2021). ‘Defending the unborn’, ‘protecting women’ and ‘preserving culture and
nation’: anti-abortion discourse in the Polish right-wing press. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2021.1878559
Lee, P., & George, R. P. (2005). The wrong of abortion. Contemporary debates in applied ethics, 13-26.
Wacks, R. (Ed.). (2015). Law and morality. In Law: A very short introduction (2nd edition, Vol. 180, pp. 74–76).
Oxford University Press.