The Abortion Issue: A Personal Struggle and Critical Evaluation

The Personal Struggle with Abortion

Task:

I feel the need fulfill my deontological duty and be quite honest with you guys.  I struggle with the abortion issue because I have personally been affected by this.  I am on the fence with regards to this topic.  Please do not place a moral judgement against me because I am not totally for, or against, abortion.  Does it happen?  Absolutely.  Is it ever morally justifiable?  Probably not.  Admittingly, I struggled with reading this article.  It was a bit too abstract for my thinking/thought processes.  I do not feel like the “unplugging the violinist” analogy personally worked for me.  Why not?  Because in the article Ms. Thompson is making a reference to keeping someone alive who has already been born.  I believe the major concerns regarding abortion revolve around the rights of the unborn and the rights of the mother.

Section 4 discusses the risk of losing your rights if you “voluntarily have sex”.  Thompson uses the “burglar” and “people-seeds” analogy to argue her point.  As abstract as this illustration is, I do feel like it succeeded her argument.  Why?  Because taking precautions does not guarantee that a certain “unwanted” outcome will not occur.  For example, I buckle my seatbelt every time I drive, even if it is just a mile down the road.  Why do I do this?  For unforeseen event that I might be involved in a car accident.  Will buckling my seatbelt keep me from having a car accident?  Absolutely not.  I do not believe that a woman has given away any of her rights because she voluntarily participated in a sexual activity.  Thompson declares that one can avoid pregnancy due to rape by having a hysterectomy, or anyway by never leaving home without a (reliable!) army (Thompson 1971).  Am I the only one who feels like these are extreme measures?   I do not think that God intended for us to live in accordance with this.

Thompson raises the question of a “special” relationship between the unborn and the mother (Thompson 1971).  Does this obligate us to not have an abortion?  No, I do not believe that is the case.  When does that obligation start?  I believe that obligation starts after the mother autonomously accepts the responsibility to nurture and care for an unborn child.   A “biological” relationship and a “special” relationship are two different entities.  There is a special/unique relationship between the unborn and the mother, but only if the relationship is “desired”.  Parenthood marks an important and distinct difference between pregnancy and the violinist illustration.  Parenthood requires willingly accepting the responsibilities of being a parent both during pregnancy and continues after birth.  The violinist is a poor example because the person is an unwilling participant, and the recipient is only alive because of your circulatory system.  There is no “parenthood” involved in that, only biologics.

Thompson argues that not all abortions are justifiable.  She relays that abortions should not be performed as a means of taking care of a “nuisance”, nor should they be performed after the third trimester (7th month) where the fetus might survive life outside the mother’s womb (Thompson 1971).  I do not feel she is consistent with some of her statements. She claims she is not arguing for the right to secure the death of the unborn child.  However, abortion kills the fetus.  Thompson claims to have been “pretending” throughout that the fetus is a human being at the time of conception.  Therefore, an early abortion is not the killing of a person so is not dealt with by anything that she has said (Thompson 1971).  This makes absolutely no sense to me but, then again, neither did most of this article.