TABLE
OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
ONE
INTRODUCTION
AND PROPOSITIONAL SYNOPSIS
1.1 Background
To The Study
1.2 Significance
of the Study
1.3 Overview
of Pro-Life Proposition
1.4 Analysis
of Common Ground and Conflict Areas
CHAPTER
TWO
COMPARATIVE
ANALYSIS OF LEGAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Outline Of America’s Legal Structure
on Abortion
2.3 Outline Of Nigeria’s Legal Structure
on Abortion
2.4 Analysis of Political, Religious and
Scientific Influence in Nigeria
2.5 Pragmatic Stance in Nigeria
CHAPTER
THREE
DIRECTIONAL
AFFIRMATION FOR PRO CHOICE PROPOSITION
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Critical
Evaluation of the Nigerian Legal Structure
3.3 Global
Alignment as To the Pro Life and Pro Choice Debate
3.4 Personal
Perspective and Recommendation as To the Adoption of Pro Choice Proposition
CHAPTER
FOUR
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSION
4.1 Summary
4.2 Concluding Remark
BIBLIOGRAPHY
CHAPTER
ONE
INTRODUCTION AND PROPOSITIONAL
SYNOPSIS
1.1
BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
The
act of abortion borders around the deliberate
termination of a human pregnancy,
most often performed during the first 28 weeks. However, it may also be stated
to mean the expulsion of a foetus from the womb by natural causes before it is
able to survive independently. As mentioned, it may occur either from
natural causes spontaneously, or through inducement and the intentional expulsion has formed the
basis of the global discussion concerning the issue.
Abortion,
which is relatively a medical term, has evolved today into a debate hovering
around a socio-legal sphere. Therefore, it considers
the question as to whether it should be treated mainly as an issue of personal
liberty as against the level of interference by the state. In other words,
should it be deemed right or wrong to deliberately put an end to a pregnancy
and do away with the foetus? Does a woman have complete control over her body
or does the state have a responsibility which can truncate to a large extent,
her right over her person? Also, should the process of abortion be penalized or
permitted and to what degree?
As
the topic states “A Directional Assessment of Suggested Legal Pathways as to
the ‘PRO LIFE’ and ‘PRO CHOICE’ propositions,” this paper duly examines these
two major viewpoints relating to the abortion debate as well as other notable
perspectives in order to fully understand the expanded dimension in which the act
in itself has taken. The debate has branched out into different aspects
including feminism, economics, religion and philosophy, though grounded still,
in the area of human rights.
The
Federal Republic of Nigeria, in relation to other countries, relatively
possesses strict and outdated abortion laws and it is important to review them
as to whether such laws should be revised and changed or should remain the
same. For instance, in England, Scotland and Wales, under the Abortion Act of
1967, abortion is legal up to a
period of twenty-four weeks. There is no time limit however, if there are fetal
abnormalities or if a substantial risk to the woman’s life, physical and mental
health is posed.
Such an act must also be carried out in a hospital or licensed clinic and two
doctors must agree that it would cause less damage to the woman’s physical or
mental health over and above continuing the pregnancy. On the other hand, in
Northern Ireland, as governed by Sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the
Person Act 1861 and Sections 25 and 26 of the Criminal Justice Act (Northern
Ireland) 1945, abortion must be performed in good faith to preserve the life of
the mother and to alleviate any long term damage. Focus will however be placed
on a comparison to the American legal framework in order to properly evaluate
the evolution and development of the laws concerning the issue and the lack
municipally.
The
state of our economical and medical system will be considered as well as the
general opinion of what the citizens themselves deem necessary in order to
properly address the issue. Asides from that, the reality of the situation will
also be measured and not ignored as the laws should rightly reflect the spirit
of the people.
The
global edification will also be examined and placed in contrast on a variety of
levels to proper scrutinize the issue in terms of the societal standards, level
of liberty and territorial delimitations. It also seeks to provide a pointer,
as to the more appropriate and beneficial trail to be followed after a proper
consideration of the possible outcome of both options.
It
is my desire that this paper will create the necessary awareness and exposure
as to the concept of abortion which has long been in neglect and in want of
prioritization. Attention will also be paid to the grave matters surrounding
the issue and the consequences of its lack of regard while adequately providing
a proper recommendation for our country so as to pave the way for a proper
regulation of the process.
1.2 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
This
study is aimed at providing an understanding as to the evolution and basis of
the various philosophical theories, landmark cases, legal elements and other
notable contributors surrounding the abortion debate. The area of abortion and
human rights is very important as it deals with human life and the level of
interference between the person and the State. However, to a large extent, it
is prejudiced and avoided in discussion municipally and it is imperative to
take steps to analyze and examine the concept.
Furthermore,
it will also ascertain and examine the realistic practice of abortion in
Nigeria, notwithstanding the legal enactments currently in place as well as the
support for elimination of discrimination against women and an advocacy of
rights accorded them as such. A beneficial direction to be adopted in Nigeria
pertaining to the issue will also be given, with adequate contemplation as to
the methods by which the accommodation of such direction can be achieved.
1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE ABORTION DISCUSSION
The
earliest practice of abortion is evidently recorded to have occurred since
the ancient times, dating back to the pre-modern era of the late bronze age.
This is with regard to the specified fines in the Code of Hammurabi propounded by the King of
Babylon, for intentionally causing miscarriage to a woman through assault.
Religious courts in India also prescribed penalties for a woman who procured an
abortion and excommunication for a priest who provided such.
Generally,
the primeval methods employed were quite medicinal and physically inclined as
against surgical procedures of the modern age. Activities such asbattery,
girdle tightening, diving, climbing, weightlifting and strenuous labor were
commonly used and other forms like fasting, heating the abdomen and
bloodletting were also drawn in. Few surgical attempts
were however documented as to the extraction of the fetus but were believed to
have been uncommon, due to sparse reports of such accounts.
The
Greeks and Egyptians also developed many concoctions using plants and herbs as
contraceptives and abortifacients. Such would include silphium, birthwort and a mixture of rue, egg
and dill.
These formulae were shared with the Romans who believed, alongside the Jews,
that no right was accorded a fetus inside the womb until it was born. However, both Jews and
Romans had diverse views regarding the issue as the former practiced it on a
minimal scale. It was not until the A. D. 400s, that St Augustine openly condemned the use
of abortion as he was more in support of only performing it on women in whom
their fetuses had died in utero.Augustine presumably influenced the Catholic
Church and its views on abortion and contraceptives.
Consequently,
with the modern era and the advancement of science and technology, surgical
procedures were developed, though affected with the
bane of criminalization especially under the Victorian influence and in the United States. France however, saw it as
a last resort for pregnant and unmarried women, though readapted for women
generally as a backup plan for ineffectual contraceptives.
Hence,
this study is premised upon a number of propositions and theoretical
assessments resulting from the various conflicting sides taken on the abortion
debate from the beginning of its practice to the world in its current state. The
Pro-Life and Pro-Choice are such major opinions, whilst the Philosophical,
Libertarian and Legal perspectives which contribute greatly, will also be
examined.
1.3.1 OVERVIEW OF PRO-LIFE
PROPOSITION
This
theory represents a belief in sanctity of human life and its preservation at
all costs. It is principally a ‘Right to life’ movement which has sought to
uphold such right even from the earliest stages of its formation as it has
placed a high value on all human life, whether young or old. Even though the
act of abortion is etched in our history, this movement is deemed an offshoot
of a long-standing alignment to the opposition of abortion.
In
essence, the Pro-Life is premised upon conservation of life even at its
earliest stages. The determinant factors as to when the human life actually
begins forms part of the basis of the abortion debate in itself. According to
the Pro-Lifer’s view, such begins at conception. From this moment, mother
and child are deemed separate from one another, as the unborn child, though
living inside its mother is not the same person as her. Scientific records have proved such;
It is the
penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoa and the resultant mingling of the
nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of
the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.
Furthermore,
terms such as ‘embryo’ and ‘fetus’ refer to different stages of the development
of the baby and not just a mere atom as there is a heartbeat right from the
moment of conception. By this time, all the features that will eventually
develop are already embedded in the fetus and therefore, by default, the
termination of such is the termination of life.
The
argument also spans towards fundamental rights available to all humans and an
emphasis on its accessibility.They believe that the
unborn should be accorded the full degree and entirety of rights which would
include therein; the right to life. Even so, there should not
be any ‘freedom’ as to a choice of doing away with the life of an innocent
person. One’s right of control over their body can be exercised fairly, just as
long as it does not impede the next man’s right to live.
The
fact that government intervention should be limited on the basis of the right
to privacy is also challenged by this group especially in the United States
where such right is not expressly contained in the constitution. They believe that the
government, to a large extent is responsible for every individual in the State
and has the duty to uphold its life under reasonable circumstances.
Moreover,
it is often complained that there are many societal issues involved in raising
unwanted children. However, according to the
Pro-Life, there is no such thing as an ‘unwanted child’ for someone, somewhere
may want the child one is willing to give up. Due to this, there has
been offered, an alternative direction; adoption. If one cannot bear to raise a
child then the child can be given up to be raised in a better home. Some also state
that “a baby is a blessing no matter the circumstance,” so if it not seen as a
‘blessing’ to those who are unwilling to raise it, they can choose to turn it
over to those who would.
Concerning
the health and safety of the woman and child, the Pro-Lifers believe that the
effect of legalizing of abortion is somewhat overrated. This is due to the fact
that those for choice label death, even if it is that of the woman, as the
biggest risk of childbirth but in reality, are in support of causing death to
another person.The entire perimeter is baffling, as it is seemingly unfair to
fear for the life of the woman and not give any consideration the innocent life
residing inside her.
Also,
abortion in itself is not necessarily a safer and more convenient procedure
than childbirth.
Many women still die from abortion even if it is legalized and well regulated. It
is infact,
a leading cause of various medical complications affecting childbearing in later
years and significantly increases the risk of breast cancer. The procedure is
also usually a painful one for both mother and child physically and mentally
with the possibility of psychological damage to the woman.
All
in all, abortion, as deemed by the Anti-Choice, is not directly in the interest
of that of the woman. Instead, it can be seen as a means of the government to
make huge financial gains by persuading people to follow in their direction. It also reduces the value
attached to the family asan institution and has led to a world where human
pesticides are being created and used on a daily basis to do away with innocent
lives.
1.3.2 OVERVIEW OF PRO-CHOICE
PROPOSITION
Generally,
there has been a move towards women being in control of their lives in terms
of going to school, seeking jobs and making important life decisions on their
own as opposed to the patriarchal form of society where they were seen as being
second and inferior to men. Their independence was also greatly emphasized and this eventually
spilled over into making the choice as to how many children they would rather
have and whether or not to carry such a pregnancy.
One
premise of this justification is due to the long-term effects that could befall a child
who was not properly mothered which could take shape psychologically, mentally
and even physically. This in turn could lead to societal issues as there would
be an overflow of ‘nuisances’ that could cause more harm than good. The Pro-Choice movement
seeks to validate and support the notion that a person has a ‘choice’ and a ‘say’
concerning the children they wish and wish not to have. If an adult decides that
he or she is uninterested in having a child, there should be a clear path, with
no obstacle to making such a choice because the adverse effects usually outweigh
the good.
With
regard to the foundational issue as to when human life actually begins, the
Pro-Choice are more concerned with when legal personhood actually begins. For instance, the Anti-Choice
base their belief of a fetus being a human due to its already formed DNA and
human tissue.
However, abiding by this argument, if a flake of dandruff falls off one’s hair,
since it contains DNA and human tissue, it should then be considered human and
enough to sustain itself into becoming a fully grown human life, separate and
distinct from the person it fell out of. If this is not of
validity and accuracy, a zygote should not be considered as human life.
More
so, a fetus cannot engage in rational human perception, neither can it perform
functions on its own, it does not look visibly human and may not necessarily
survive outside the body of its host. At this stage of
development, one is not conscious enough to know it has been conceived and will
not know when it has been eliminated as the brain which has been labeled the seat of personhood is
not fully developed by that time.Neither its existence is recognized by it nor
will its non-existence be regretted by it. Worrying about such will only
deliver one into an irrational dimension which has neither tail nor head.
Nevertheless, at conception, such form cannot be rendered a ‘complete’ human as
there are many stages of development the fetus must embark on before it can
validly be declared a ‘human being.’
Furthermore,
it should not be considered ‘fair’ and ‘just’ to use another person’s body to
survive against their will. No one should have a
‘right to life’ which is exercised at the expense of another as it is as grave
as threatening the host’s life, for childbirth in itself,
is a near fatal procedure for every woman. In fact, the risk of dying from childbirth
is about 14 times higher (8.8 in 100,000) than abortion which is 0.6 in 100,000which makes abortion a
less lethal procedure than childbirth especially when performed by trained
individuals.
Besides,
reproductive freedom should be recognized as every human should
have control over what happens to their body. If one decides to risk their
health either by having an abortion or a child,the choice should be theirs and
not for the State or a group of uninvested activists.One’s inalienable right to
privacy should be balanced as against interference by the State for it is no
one’s business what decision a woman makes with her physician and it is not for
the government to intrude unless it is necessary.Moreover, the pain of
childbirth, which has been measuredon both physiologic and
psychosocial planes, should not be imposed on a person only for them to give up
the child at the end of the day.
The
Pro-Choice also defend abortion on the basis of
ineffectual contraceptives. They insist that reproduction is not
the sole reason for sex as it is also for pleasure and strengthening bonds
between partners. Not everyone who has sex is ready and willing to be a parent
and such cannot be forced upon him, therefore, it is reasonable to seek an
abortion where the other means of prevention has failed and such is the last
resort.
Nevertheless,
there has always been and there will always be abortions, legal or not. Thus, it is
best to support it openly to prevent back alley abortions and the risks
associated with it. The Pro-Choice also
suggest that abortion should be
made available and affordable to all classes of people in society especially
with relation to financial status as anyone and everyone may need it at some
point. These classes of society should also be properly educated about the
entire scope and the consequences that may be attached to it through their
schooling, counseling and the media as well.
Conclusively,
balancing the scale with regard to one’s personal interest as against societal
intrusion is necessary as consideration should be given to a scenario whereby
those who are against abortion are not likely to personally aid one in raising
their child. Therefore, they should have little or no say as to whether or not
you should have the child in the first place.
1.3.3 LANDMARK DECISION IN ROE V WADE
Prior
to the decision in this case, many states in the USA had declared abortion
illegal in their statutes with the exception of its adoption in lieu of
preserving the woman’s life if faced with grave danger. However, this did not
necessarily hinder women from procuring abortions through illegal means,
instead, exposed them further to harm due to the absence of proper regulation
of such procedures. Many unlicensed practitioners were involved in these
appalling acts, especially in unsanitary conditions, which often resulted to
great detriment on the woman’s part, leading to infection, hemorrhage, and even
death.
With
reference
to the legal development of the right to privacy, it was given a deeper
interpretation, as to the protection of a person’s “bodily integrity, identity,
and destiny” and allowing freedom from undue manipulation by the government.
Slowly but surely, such laws that prevented the use of contraception were
decided against, especially in the 1965 and 1972 cases of Griswold v. Connecticutand Eisenstadt v. Baird.These cases buttressed the
opinion that the government is in no position to decide for the individual their
choice of children.
Hence,
the revolutionary case of Roe v Wade expanded
the right to privacy as to not only a choice of whether or not to create a
child but to be enabled to end such a process, even though it has already
begun. In its ruling, the court documented and acknowledged that the provision
of the right to privacy under the constitution“is broad enough to encompass a
woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy”
In
this case,
Norma McCorvey; unmarried and from Dallas, Texas who was regarded by her alias,
‘Jane Roe’ sought to terminate her pregnancy and brought suit against Henry
Wade, the Dallas County prosecutor to prevent him from enforcing the
anti-abortion laws in place at that time. The suit was brought in 1970 and was
still underway by 1971 when Roe had given birth to her child and put it up for
adoption. This case was challenged as to its being moot, due to its nature and Justice Blackmun noted that “Our law
should not be that rigid,” and he stated further “pregnancy provides a classic
justification for a conclusion of non-mootness. It truly could be “capable of
repetition, yet evading review.” Thereafter, the court tilted towards Roe’s
assertion and a host of other contributions such as cases, philosophical and
religious writings, so also the anti-abortion laws and a conclusion as to
displacement of such laws was reached. The court also pronounced that indeed,
the right to privacy was being violated.
However,
the protection of the right to privacy in itself was also challenged due to the
fact that there was no express provision for it in the constitution. This was
then defended by an analysis of earlier judicial decisions such as Boyd v. United States, Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, Terry v. Ohio, Katz v. United States and a host of many others
where Blackmun further cited that
“the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of
certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution.”
In
cognizance to the case in question, he also noted that;
This right of
privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of
personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as
the district court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights
to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not
to terminate her pregnancy.
He stated that the government’s intrusion
posed a lot of burden to an already pregnant woman and allowing the possibility
of impediments mentally, physically, emotionally and financially. As a
breakdown, Blackmun believed that one
cannot force a woman to carry a child she does not want for the adverse effects
will affect not just her, but the society at large due to the psychological
state of both the woman and her child and such difficulties encountered such as
lack of care and a disadvantaged motherhood.
Therefore,
a standardized format to regulate abortion was constructed by Blackmun, permitting the State’s
intervention only during the third trimester. He stated that at this point, it
could be forbidden by the State, “except when it is necessary to preserve the
life or health of the mother,” because “the fetus then presumably has the
capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation
protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological
justifications.”
So
also on the same day, the other case of Doe
v Bolton
modified Roe v Wade, enunciating that
the state has no right to limit abortion sought on the basis of health. The
court went on to explain ‘health’ as “all factors – physical, emotional,
psychological, familial, and the woman's age – relevant to the well-being of
the patient.”
This basically expanded such a right to contain virtually any and every reason
to choose an abortion. Therefore, the woman and her physician had sole control
over her womb at the first trimester, whilst at the second trimester; the state
had a right but not a duty to regulate it for the protection of the pregnant
woman.
The
immediate effect of the decision reached in Roe
v Wade was not particularly controversial and did not cause an upheaval
since states such as California and New York seemed to align with Blackmun’s dictum by reviewing their
abortion laws.
It also appeared
as a platform used to expand human rights and empower women since awareness was
taking its toll and it seemed like a form of liberation from patriarchal laws
in society.
Indeed, the outcome of the regulation of abortion resulted in the preservation
of many lives since the procedure was now safe, and conducted by licensed
practitioners in approved facilities and hospitals.
Consequently,
with cases such as Planned Parenthood of
Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, religious groups and Anti-Choice supporters, the decision in Roe v Wade has been challenged and
restricted in many ways. However, the three part
standard of Justice Blackmunremained
and is still verified as protection of the fundamental right to privacy.
1.3.4 EXAMINATION OF PHILOSOPHICAL
POSITION
Various
notable philosophers and schools of thought across the globe have penned out
their views and opinions concerning the abortion debate. They do not
necessarily agree with one another, but have nevertheless, lent a hand in
shaping the issue of abortion and where it is today.
Judith
Jarvis Thomson is one major philosopher who has expressed a widely accorded
view with respect to the dilemma associated with abortion. This, she did by
enlisting
the general Pro-Life arguments, considering their premise, and refuting them. She
criticized their view about labeling the fetus a human being by comparing the
scenario to that of an acorn and an oak tree. She stated that she did not hold
such a view, since an acorn cannot be deemed to be an oak tree and even
described such area as a ‘slippery-slope’ argument which she did not wish to go
on with.She
also mentioned
that carrying a fetus is similar to being a Good Samaritan; it is not a
mandatory duty that one must fulfill, instead, one could do so out of their own
volition. She came up with the ‘Violinist theory’ which has been criticized
and praised in a number of ways.
Whilst
the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice keep going back and forth as to whether or not the
fetus is a human being or a blob of tissue, Thomson believed that was not the
main issue. She admitted that even if the fetus is a human being, what then is
the next step to take? Whose right to life should outweigh the other? An
illustration was then painted with respect to this issue;
You wake up in the
morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A
famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment,
and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records
and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore
kidnapped you, and last night the violinist circulatory system was plugged into
yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as
well as your own. The director of hospital now tells you, “Look, we’re sorry
the Society of Music Lovers did this to you-we would never have permitted it if
we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into
you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it’s only for nine
months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be
unplugged from you.” Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this
situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness.
But did you have to accede to it?
Even
though the violinist has a right to life, does his outweigh yours? Even so, in
this case, you were kidnapped which was against your will. What about children
borne out of rape? The choice should be that of the mother’s and not for anyone
else as to what to do with her body.
Critics
of Thomson’s theory have described the Violinists theory as a case of ‘letting
him die’
as opposed to intentionally killing the baby. What they fail to understand is
that no matter the direction taken, both parties’ lives are at risk and a
mother’s abortion of her child cannot seriously be considered as murder. One
cannot be coerced to kill oneself to save the life of another. You do not have
to allow the Violinist to be continuously strapped to your back and pulling the
plug on him should not be considered
as murder. This can also be extended to the area of self defense as well, for
it played a part of immense contribution to the subject.
Critics
also mentioned
that the scenario is flawed and cannot be generalized since the reader appears
kidnapped and therefore does not seem to avail those who have consensual sex.
The kidneys and womb are different and perform separate functions which are
completely diverse from one another. Also, a woman carrying a child is not
necessarily bedridden for nine months but usually mobile and the principles
justifying a disconnection from the Violinist may not necessarily cover that of
the mother’
Thomson still maintains that the scenario painted is adequate enough and share
the same crux. She also emphasizes on a woman’s right to choose, believing it
is not for a third party to make the decision for you.
Mary Anne Warren also offered her opinion and
provided a distinction between the ‘moral’ and ‘genetic’ status of a human
being.In the moral sense of the
word, she described it as “a full-fledged member of the moral community, who is
also a member of the human species.” Whilst on the other hand,
in the genetic sense “any individual entity that belongs to the human species.”
Warren
emphasizes the distinction and states that there can be one without the other;
a human who exists in the genetic sense and not in the moral sense but not
necessarily vice versa. Warren likened such to an adult who is comatose and has
been stripped of any and all consciousness or an anencephalic child who is born
without any senses. Just because their genetic features can be identified does
not mean they have access to rights or can still be termed as persons.
Warren
then stated that there are criteria to be met before one can be given a status
of personhood and it seems that a fetus does not meet such requirements. Warren
then gave her illustration as to the
issue;
Imagine, then, a space
traveler who lands on a new planet, and encounters organisms unlike any she has
ever seen or heard of. If she wants to behave morally toward these organisms,
she has somehow to determine whether they are people and thus have full moral
rights, or whether they are things that she need not feel guilty about
treating, for instance, as a source of food.
Warren
suggested certain factors the space traveler would consider to include
awareness, reason, ability to communicate, expression of emotions and moral
status. However, a fetus does not meet such criteria and can only be termed as
genetic humans and therefore not subject to any of the rights available to
those of moral persons. This is also means that a woman can choose to end the
life of a person who only can be termed ‘potential’ if it will lead to
“intolerable mental, physical, and economic cost to themselves and their
families.”
This
theory has been criticized in the sense that Warren’s leading points of her
argument seem to promote infanticide, thereby justifying the killing of babies.
However, she had foresight and reaffirmed that she is not in
support of such, as she stated that newborn babies are virtually humans and a
strong moral justification must be provided in order for them to be killed.
On
the other hand, Don Marquis opposed abortion on the grounds that it would
deprive the embryo of a valuable future. He argued that killing
would bring terrible harm to the victim consisting of a deprivation of valuable
“experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments” and since an embryo’s
future is deemed highly valuable,its carnage would be a terrible thing.
Marquis’
argument has however been pronounced flawed as it would also reach
the same conclusion that using contraceptives is wrong since a sperm and ovum
joined together have a future like ours. Moreover, what is the guarantee of a
valuable future, especially to a child who is about to be brought up in a home
where he was forced upon his parents?
Also,
Libertarianism is a political philosophy whose central objective is liberty and
autonomy. Generally, Libertarians seek
to promote individual liberty over and above interference by the State. They try to emphasize
personal independence and freedom in many aspects, especially in light of
decision making, association and also in the political realm. However, within
this school of thought, there are oppositions based on the extent of State and
Individual power particularly with regards to Left and Right-Libertarianism
respectively. From this, it is gathered the term ‘Libertarianism’ is used to describe the
basic and general principles associated with freedom even though they may
differ on a more intrinsic level. The issue of abortion is not an exception to
the areas which possess conflicting views. Some libertarians endorse access to legal
abortion whilst some oppose it.
Philosopher
Murray Rothbard opined that “No being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite
within or upon some person’s body” and a woman should have
the opportunity to “eject the fetus from her body.” Rothbard however explained
that there is a fine line drawn between a fetus and a baby as soon after it is
born, all rights accorded to human beings are given to it and is deemed a
separate entity from the mother. Therefore, it is illegal to infringe upon such
rights in any manner, through murder, mutilation and so forth. He also believed
that individual states should be able to create their own abortion policies
without undue interference by the government at the federal level.
Ayn
Rand believed that a fetus having the right to life was “vicious nonsense.” She also argued that
until a child is born, it can have no rights; therefore, a fetus should not be
defended in such a light. On the part of the mother, who possesses full rights,
she groups abortion as a moral right and states that it should be left solely
to the discretion of the mother, in which her wishes should be respected.
In
Walter Block’s opinion, he created a sort of
in-between ideology other than the ‘Pro-Life and Pro-Choice’ which he termed
‘Evictionism.’ Under this, he separated the act of abortion into two distinct
parts, illustrating that the eviction of the fetus from the womb and killing of
the fetus are not the same thing. In consideration to the areas of trespass and
murder, which Libertarians generally do not support, he opposed the second act.
However, he defended the use of legal abortion where the fetus cannot survive
outside the womb or when the woman has
proclaimed that she can no longer keep custody of the fetus and no one else has
‘homesteaded’ the right by offering to care for it.
According
to Benjamin Tucker, he viewed a child as the
property of its mother from the time it is in the womb till the moment of
emancipation, where the child can now make contracts and live on their own. He
resolved that a mother could dispose of her ‘property’ according to her whim
and ‘parental cruelty’ was of non-invasive character which should not be
prohibited.
On
the other hand, the Pro-Life version of this movement namely the ‘Libertarians
for Life’ argue that all humans, and even those in the pre-natal stages of
development are entitled fully to rights as such do not differ from person to
person via age and size. Jewish general practitioner, Doris Gordon, of the
group, believed that the Libertarian
ideology required an obligation to children and such must be upheld in order to
keep the ethical principle of the non-aggression axiom. This principle exists
to expressly forbid an opposition to and violation of the Libertarian’s concept
of rights. Gordon also stated that even pregnant women
were not exempt from following such a principle as such obligations come with
human nature and are acquired at conception.
Other
philosophers such as Stephen D. Schwarz
and R.K. Tacelli in their work “Abortion and Some Philosophers: A Critical
Examination,” so also Andrew C. Varga in his “The Main Issues of Bioethics”and Sidney Callahan in her
“Abortion and the Sexual Agenda.” have also provided widely recognized
arguments with respect to the issue of abortion.
1.4 ANALYSIS OF COMMON GROUND AND
CONFLICT AREAS
Generally,
the two major perspectives as to the issue of abortion are deemed parallel but
however, on certain occasions, find a meeting point. Save for their opposing
views, there are certain policies and situations that both sides would consider
the same decision and reach a unified verdict.
Both
propositions would consider grave risk to the woman’s physical health and a
possibility of death as the basis of an approval of abortion.According to a poll
conducted by Gallup, it was recorded that 69% of Pro-Lifers
gave in as to when the woman’s life was endangered and 68% as to her physical
health. Also, in such a case where the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest,
59% of the Pro-Lifers were in support as was recorded a 32% difference between
both schools. On the other hand, both sides strictly opposed abortion in the
case of Partial-Birth Abortions as it would prevent
serious threat to the woman’s health. Performing it in the
third trimester is also not supported by both groups as 79% of the Pro-Choice
opted against it.
However,
the question of life and when it begins still remains at variance between the two
positions, so also the area of societal and social concerns as the Pro-Life
strongly reject issues like financial burden as a rationale for
abortion. Both also interpret the idea of fundamental rights differently and do not share the
same view as to the effect of general standards of health and safety on the
issue of abortion.
Click “DOWNLOAD NOW” below to get the complete Projects
FOR QUICK HELP CHAT WITH US NOW!
+(234) 0814 780 1594
Login To Comment