Solution to Abortion Debate (or the beginning of one)

Follow this formula:

("reason for abortion" * " rights of mother") > or = or < ("death" * "rights of fetus")

The "reason for abortion" is a number from 0 to 1, with 1 being the best reason there is (perhaps that the mother is guaranteed to die if she doesn't have the abortion).  "death" is either a 0 or 1 if the fetus is killed or not killed.  Action is unethical if the formula ends up with a <, doesn't matter one way or the other if it is =, and ethical if it is >.

Then it's your own opinion of what the rights of the mother and the rights of the fetus are. If you believe they have equal rights, then it will never be ethical to have an abortion because no reason for abortion is of greater importance than death (perhaps except death of the mother, in which case it would be equally ethical to get an abortion or not get an abortion). If you believe the fetus has 0 rights, then the reason for the abortion can be non existent and still be ok. And, of course, everywhere in between.

After we've decided that your views on abortion rest with what rights you think the mother and fetus have, we can debate the much harder issue of who is right about the amount of rights the fetus has and the level of rights the mother has.

This debate, I think, seems to stem from the question about when human life begins, since we give human life more rights than non living things (or even, some would say, non-human life.  For example, a sperm and a fertilized egg are both alive.)

In my opinion, there is no moment after conception that BOOM, the fetus is suddenly a human life.  Whereas conception is a pretty defining moment in the change of what's inside you (perhaps the change is no life to life?) as well as the moment the baby is born.  Everything in between is sort of just cell multiplication according to DNA.  You don't go into the ultrasound office and hear her say, "Oh yes, see that movement there?  That's an alive baby.  Before he wasn't alive.  But now I can tell, there's definitely life."

Therefore, we have to assume that life either beings at conception, or when the baby is born and is detached from the mother. To pick an arbitrary date in between seems rather... arbitrary.

Therefore, I say life begins at conception.  Are the fetus' rights any different from the mothers?  I personally do not think that age determines worth (although you might say a 10 year old's life has more worth than a 99 year old man's, but this actually would prove that the fetus' life has more worth since it has more potential years ahead of it).

So, if we assume that the rights of the mother and the rights of the fetus are equal, then the formula will only ever be ethical if the baby is not killed or both the mother and the baby are killed.

If the fetus will be born with defects, do its rights diminish?  If so, then abortion may be ethical depending on what level of rights it has and how strong the reason for having an abortion is. If not, then it isn't.

Here are some pro-abortion arguments.  I will tell you why they are all illogical.

• It’s the mother’s body - she should decide what happens

 We live on the Earth and cannot exist outside of it.  Does that mean it is ethical for it to decide to murder us all in a tsunami?  (Assuming it did it consciously).  Also, a baby is a separate life.  The mother should be able to do whatever she wants to *her own* body.  Any part that will one day walk off and later say "what the hell, man, you didn't check with me if you could tattoo that arm?" (assuming the arm walked off as a separate human one day) is ok to do whatever she wants with. 

Incidentally, do pro-choicers think it's ethical to tattoo a fetus in the womb?  Ok, so you hire a tattoo artist and he sticks his hand, machine, and arm up there, and tattoos a heart on the baby's chest.  Did the woman have the right to do this "to her body"?  Of course!  If she can KILL it, she can certainly tattoo it!  When the child grows up and says "You had no right to tattoo me when I was a fetus.  This heart is really stupid looking." you can tell him with confidence, "It's ok, you didn't have rights when I did it.  Aren't you glad I didn't kill you instead?  You little wise-ass."

What if a giant alien, in an experiment, took a 2 month old and hooked up her intestines with his and swallowed her into his little cavity thingy.  Essentially, she now lives inside of him and if taken outside, could not live on her own anymore (remember her intestines?) without serious surgery.  Does this alien now have a right to this little 2 month old's life?  "I'm done with it now.  Kill it please."  He probably wouldn't even have to be as gruesome as we are, just disconnect them and she's done for.  No acid or scrambling of the brains for our alien friends.

• Every baby has the right to proper care and love; if this is not possible, abortion should be okay

Proper care and love vs death.  Ask a neglected child if he or she wishes she were aborted.

• There are already too many unwanted babies in our over-populated world.  Why add more?

Why not kill all 7 year olds in the world?  (Then we wouldn't have to pay for teachers that year for 2nd grade!)  Solves both overpopulation problems as well as our financial problem.

• Surely the woman, and her family, have rights, not just the unborn baby?

Of course they have rights.  Equal rights.  It's hard to say your right to an uninterrupted life is more important than death though.

• Raped women should not be made to have the baby as they did not choose to get pregnant and would be constantly reminded of their ordeal as the child grows up

Mental anguish vs death.  Selfish much?

• If baby is severely handicapped, only mother can decide if she can look after the baby

Hard life vs death.

• In the case of under-age pregnancy, the girl may not have really understood what she was doing, and should not lose her education and career opportunities over one mistake

Loss of education and career opportunities vs death (and guilt about killing ones child).  I'm not saying it's an easy choice.

• A family may be too poor to cope with a child, and if there are other children already, they may suffer

Suffer vs death.  If the child's life would cause other siblings to die, then were talking.  If another life is 100% guaranteed to die unless the child is aborted then abortion is ethical.  This includes the mother.  This is the only time when abortion is ethical, assuming all humans have equal rights.

• Life doesn’t really start until birth, or at least until the fetus is viable

Even abortionists admit life begins at conception.  The debate is about whether or not "personhood" beings at conception or birth or somewhere in the middle.  Unfortunately, this just supports infanticide.  (Really, if you think about it, is an infant all that much different from an 8 month fetus?)  If you want to go the route that a fetus has a right to life if it can exist outside the womb, we are assuming current technology to keep it alive defines a right to life.  Why is it only valuable if it can exist outside the mother?  Are we only valuable humans when we're in spacesuits because then we can exist outside of earth?

• Many pregnancies end through natural abortions (miscarriages) – abortion is natural and often women don’t even know they were pregnant: it doesn’t have to be a big deal

People die all the time from natural causes too, but murder is still wrong.  These are really bad arguments.

• A baby with severe disabilities may have a very poor quality of life that also brings trauma to the parents who have to watch it suffer.  It may be kinder for that child not to be born.

Kinder for who?  Ask one of those children if they would rather be dead.  Again, poor quality of life (or what you think is poor quality of life) vs DEATH.


"Philosophers such as Aquinas use the concept of individuation. They argue that abortion is not permissible from the point at which individual human identity is realised. Anthony Kenny argues that this can be derived from everyday beliefs and language and one can legitimately say "if my mother had had an abortion six months into her pregnancy, she would have killed me" then one can reasonably infer that at six months the "me" in question would have been an existing person with a valid claim to life."

I don't know about you, but I'm glad I wasn't aborted!