Student Essay on Is Abortion Morally Acceptable?

The topic of abortion is a highly controversial issue in today's society, and various views are held concerning the morality of the procedure. Some people feel that abortion is simply cold-blooded murder, because it is their opinion that a 'foetus' is a human being from the moment of conception. However, others would argue that a foetus is merely insubstantial matter, dependant entirely on its mother's body for survival, with no real life of its own. It is for this reason that pro-abortionists support the woman's choice to undergo abortion. After all, why should something so small and insignificant, which is not yet human, be entitled to the same rights and privileges a real human has"

The Women's Rights Movement, which began in 1848 and ended only in 1998, has entitled the women of our society to various rights. Among these, was the right to have control over their body. Considering this, many would point out that terminating a pregnancy is done so within the rights of the woman, and is therefore completely acceptable. If a baby is not a 'baby' at all, but merely a part of its mother's body, surely it is her choice whether it should live or die!

Anti-abortionists often refer to abortion as, ' the intentional killing of unborn babies', and see it as an evil deed, committed only by those who do not appreciate the value of human life. Although, it seems that, in many cases it is quite the opposite. In cases such as one night stands, rape or underage pregnancies, mothers often tend to choose abortion with the fear that they cannot give their child the life they deserve. These pregnancies are unwanted, accidental even. The mother does not plainly wish to kill her child for selfish reasons, but feels that she would not be able to provide it with a loving environment, be it due to social discrimination, single parentage or mental or physical disabilities. For this reason, women must not be forced to bring their child into the world if they feel they cannot give it a proper life.

To counteract this, anti-abortionists would argue that an alternative would be adoption. They feel that just because a mother is not capable of looking after her child, her killing of it cannot be justified. If she truly had the child's best interests at heart rather than her own, she would give it the chance to live despite the circumstances. Alternatively, it must be considered that the majority of women who undergo abortion often do so while anxious, confused, desperate or even suicidal. They rarely discuss or consider the consequences of their actions, failing to take into account alternative options and see it only as a quick escape. It is widely known that the psychological effects of abortion can be devastating for women, as many seek counselling and are left feeling guilty and alone as they realise the extent of their loss.

Those who support abortion insist that there are many cases in which the procedure is vital because birth can be extremely damaging to the mother's life. In cases such as underage pregnancy, the girl's education and childhood would be destroyed. In illegitimacy, the mother would face discrimination and hostility from her church and community, and in rape, the child, the product of its mother's rape, would be an ever-present reminder of her attack. If giving birth can, in these situations have such negative effects on the mother's life, how can her only escape be deemed 'unacceptable'"

However, anti-abortionists would argue that those who support the procedure often highlight the rights of the mother and tend to overlook the victim's right to choose. They point out that the baby is the victim in all cases and feel that the only reason it is denied it's basic rights is because this human is not yet born; it is a voiceless victim with no real identity. Pro-abortionists prefer to remain on unsentimental terms when voicing their beliefs, referring to the procedure of abortion as the 'termination of a pregnancy' and use the term 'foetus' to enforce that the unborn child is not yet a human. Ironically, 'foetus', is in fact a latin term meaning 'young one', or 'little child'. Those who regard abortion as acceptable usually base their opinions on the belief that the unborn child is not a human until birth, while anti-abortionists point out that birth is only a change in the baby's environment, and not the moment at which it becomes human. 'The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children states',

'Humanity is not acquired but is inherent in all members of the human race.'

Pro-abortionists argue that these terms, 'zygote', 'foetus', 'infant', 'child', 'adolescent' and 'adult', are all merely stages of development, and none are less 'human' than the other.

To decide whether or not abortion is acceptable, we must consider the reasons for which women choose this procedure. Despite the fact that abortion is becoming almost readily available for any woman who chooses, it is only regarded as acceptable in certain conditions. The most accepted cause for abortion is severe disability. The law states that abortions are permitted after twenty-four weeks only if there is a 'substantial risk if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.' Despite my objections to abortion, I must agree that this is an acceptable allowance. It would be inhumane to deny a woman abortion if her child were to face a life of severe disability.

Although, we are then led to ask whether or not there are exceptions to the rule. What exactly must a child be suffering from to be deemed 'seriously handicapped'? It is obvious that this limit can be exploited. Different doctors will have different standards regarding this issue, some more lenient than others. A prime example of this is the 'cleft palate abortion', in which a Church of England curate Joanna Jepson, challenged an abortionist who terminated a pregnancy due to the baby having a cleft palate, claiming it acceptable on the grounds of 'serious disability.' By definition, a cleft palate is a minor facial disfigurement. Joanna Jepson, having suffered from the same condition as a child, argued that this was in no circumstances a 'serious disability' but merely a minor defect, which she had corrected during her adolescence.

The doctors who carried out the procedure discussed the condition with the mother and decided that it 'merited an abortion.' Reverend Joanna Jepson claimed that the termination breached the law and was an 'alarming example of the cult of physical perfection.' Roman Catholic writer, Christina O'Done, who agreed with Joanna commented,

'Our culture is so obsessed with looks that there are women who think it is better not to be born than not to be born beautiful. It's a horrible indictment of our society.'

Despite my own admiration for Joanna Jepson's strong opposition to this incident, after examining various opinions on the matter, I came across an article written by Sarah Womack, a reporter for 'The Daily Telegraph', who wrote, 'Judge not, lest you be judged.' I find this quote to be extremely significant, not only regarding the case of Joanna Jepson, but for the whole issue of abortion. Miss. Jepson is a young, unmarried woman with no children of her own. Although she has good intentions, it seems unfair that she is self-righteously pursuing a woman for choosing abortion, when she has never actually experienced the reality of pregnancy herself. Nicola Tyrer, an editor who commented on this issue said:

'Miss Jepson is 27 and has no children. She cannot know what an anxiety-beset emotional rollercoaster of a ride pregnancy is. To learn that there was something wrong at this late stage would come as a hammer blow. Whether to continue with the pregnancy or opt for a termination is the most harrowing decision this woman will have had to make.'

Although Joanna Jepson assured the public that she was not 'completely opposed to abortion', there are those who find it unacceptable regardless of circumstances. Pope Puis XII stated,

'No human authority, no science, no medical, eugenic, social, economic or moral indication can offer or produce a valid juridical title for the direct disposal of innocent human life.'

To put it bluntly, abortion, in all cases is the deliberate killing of innocent life. The foundation of our democracy is based upon the sacredness of human life, and to deliberately take it can never be seen as acceptable. So why is abortion an exception? If it were declared 'acceptable', even solely on the grounds of 'severe disability', pregnancy would become a process of personal preference, as society is contaminated by the 'virus' of perfectionism. Fay Weldon, an author who wrote on the issue believes,

'Children are a gift from God.' And we don't have the right to reject this gift. If a mother killed her new-born child, she would be jailed and condemned a murderer. Why then is she allowed to kill it just before birth? If she cannot hear or see the baby because it is still in her womb, does that mean that it isn't human yet? Or does the child have to reach the age of 24 weeks before it can be called a human? These ridiculous concepts are the reasons for which this murder is excused. Despite that, abortion is an extremely controversial subject and each case has individual circumstances. I feel that abortion can never be deemed acceptable. No mother should ever be given the right to kill her own child!