To abort or not to abort? Barring a few exceptions, I would clearly commit myself against abortion. Lately, there have been many developments on the subject. Internationally, the Supreme Court in the USA chose to revisit the Roe vs Wade judgment 50 years after it had set the trend to legalize or liberalize abortion. Locally, we had former MP Marlene Farrugia stating that she is not in favour of abortion but in favour of women having proper free healthcare and full autonomy of their bodies. This, in itself, is quite paradoxical! The debate has been opened wide open once more. And it is destined to rage on.
In debates on reproductive rights, the moral status of the embryo and fetus has always been at the centre of analysis. Women’s interests and choices have been only incorporated fully in the discussion since the 1970s. Subsequently, a growing number of Court decisions and government efforts throughout the world have led to the wider recognition of the right to abortion, or in some cases, the right to privacy which leads to a right to abortion. This trend has seen an increase in identifying abortion as a women’s health issue, rather than a question of the embryo’s or fetus’ right to life. That is how Marlene Farrugia is now identifying the issue. However, there is still strong opposition to the legalisation and decriminalisation of abortion from Catholic moral philosophers and other pro-life advocates. The primary conflict between feminist philosophers and pro-life advocates, viewed from a purely legal perspective, should concentrate on the weighing of one set of rights over another (if it is accepted that the embryo or foetus has any claim to rights).
Abortion is a very painful topic for women and men who find themselves facing the moral dilemma of whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. It is one of the most polarising moral issues. Most people are on one side or the other and very few are undecided. Viewed from different perspectives, both sides can boast of a number of valid arguments. The primary questions remain whether abortion is morally wrong and whether it should be legal or illegal.
But those two questions do not end the debate. If we conclude that abortion is not morally wrong, that does not mean that it is right to have an abortion. We need to ask whether having an abortion is the best thing (or least bad thing) to do in each particular case. If we conclude that abortion is morally wrong, that does not mean that it is always impermissible to have an abortion. One would need to ask whether having an abortion is less wrong than the alternatives.
On the one hand, it can be legally argued that the embryo and foetus have potential personhood meaning that, if carried to term, the foetus will most likely grow into an adult with full social and political rights. On the other hand, does that potentiality make short shrift of the usual legal requirement that anyone seeking judicial redress on the basis of the fundamental human right to life must satisfy the immediate and here and now juridical interest? In simpler terms, does the embryo or foetus have a claim to the rights it will inherit in the possible future adult life, and does the individual bodily autonomy of the woman trump the foetus’s potential life and potential rights? Undoubtedly, the woman is already a full-grown adult with rights.
The other thorny and perennial question hovers around when human life begins. Is it from the moment of conception or when the foetus displays the physical characteristics of humans and a genetic code that is sufficient for being human? Biologically, conception takes place with the union of the sperm and the ovum. It marks the onset of pregnancy marked by the implantation of the blastocyst into the endometrium. If it is concluded that the foetus is already biologically a human individual, then one need not wait for it to become a person. Rather the foetus is a human being that eventually actualises its personhood. Consequently, we can legitimately promote the idea of ‘retrospective identity.’ Even if one accepts the argument that a foetus is a person, it does not automatically follow that it has a right to use the pregnant woman’s body. Thus, the morality of abortion depends not only on the moral status of the foetus but also on whether the pregnant woman has an obligation to continue to gestate the foetus.
Even if our abortion law were to be liberalized the topic will remain controversial. It would come about to respond to the need to prevent unsafe abortions and provide safe abortion services where lawful. This is ostensibly Marlene Farrugia’s wish. If we ever come to that many of our eventual abortion providers, having religious allegiances, will have to see how to negotiate the conflicting demands of their jobs and their commitment to their patients on the one hand, and their religious convictions and moral values on the other.
Abortion will remain an extremely complex and important topic and dilemma. For this reason, this issue and dilemma warrant close scrutiny. It affects many major areas including ethics, religion, politics, law, and medicine.
So far, our president, prime minister and the opposition have committed themselves and pledged that abortion will remain what it is at law: the killing of the innocent and defenceless.
What I wish for is for the law to be so amended that, when the genuine indication arises, our courts can say that the operation was both justifiable and legal. Thus, we would eliminate from the medical practice and profession anything that savoured, even remotely, of illegality.
That apart, I certainly support a woman's right to choose, but to my mind, the time to choose is before, not after the fact.
Dr Mark Said is an advocate