The ethical and practical aspects of abortion

The ethics of killing:
in relation to abortion

Philosophers have discussed killing in terms of depriving the entity killed of a future, especially if that future is a 'future like ours'; that is a future such as a typical person might expect in a lifetime (the definition of personhood in this context is in the box on the left). Plainly this concept has relevance to the induced abortion question.

I would hold that in order to understand the ethics of killing we need to look at the very basis of ethics. Who is disadvantaged by a death? What is the balance between the good and the harm done? What suffering is involved?

Home Top Index

In the case of the death of a person the friends and relations will suffer grief, in some cases the grief greatly affects the remainder of their lives. We might expect the death of a non-human animal to have less impact on other animals, but there are certainly cases where animals do seem to 'morn' for a killed companion, perhaps especially in those cases where they mate for life. In the case of the death of a foetus the mother will be affected emotionally, sometimes deeply so; other family members may well also be affected, probably to a lesser degree.

But I hold that the entity that is killed - whether adult human, animal, or foetus - does not suffer from death, although he/she may suffer in the process of dying; death is oblivion, the end of consciousness and awareness. There is no suffering in the loss of one's future; although there could well be suffering in a person's contemplation of the losing of his future, supposing that he knows of it in advance.

The argument that the entity killed is harmed by being deprived of its future is unsupportable.

The death of a foetus is less of concern than the death of a person; the foetus has not ever developed the characteristics of personhood. It seems that to kill a non-sentient foetus is no more immoral than to stop a sperm and an ovum from forming a foetus in contraception.

Given that most entities, supposing that they understood the concepts involved, would prefer not to be killed rather than the alternative, we have to hold that killing is unethical on the ground of the Golden Rule, but considering the arguments above there seems little ethical harm to the 'victim' in killing.

In human societies the ethics of killing must take into account the harm done to the friends and relations of the person killed.

The ethics of Abortion

I have been uncertain about the ethics of abortion for a long time. I found that considering it from the ethical point of view - what good and bad is involved - and writing my thoughts here, helped me decide. As always, I would be pleased to hear other points of view, my email address is at the top of this page.

The value of human life argument Those who hold that human life is sacred will probably also hold that the embryo or foetus (again, I will use foetus in what follows to include zygote, embryo and foetus) is likewise sacred because it is a potential human being. But as this presupposes some divine ruling about the sanctity of human life - which we must accept on faith - it is invalid in an ethical argument. The religion delusion is discussed elsewhere on these pages. The Golden Rule applies. One should avoid harming any other person. I would go further, as I have done in my section on the Golden Rule above; we should try to avoid harming any other organism (unless doing so achieves a greater good). In my page on Animal rights I argue under the Supremacy of Man and Animal vs. human rights that there is no justification on holding human life to be in any way special compared to non-human life.

What good is done, what harm? The mother If a pregnancy puts the life of the mother at risk, then we should consider the value of the foetus compared to the value of the life of the mother (the arguments above place a much lower value on the life of the foetus than on that of the mother); remembering too that should the mother die early in the pregnancy the foetus will also die. Another very important question is, is the potential child wanted? An unwanted child does not have a good life. If a mother has a child that she does not want then both she and the child may be greatly harmed; forcing the mother to continue with the pregnancy might produce a child with little chance of a happy life for itself and cause the mother much suffering as well. The mother should have a right to control her own life, at least to the extent that in doing so she does minimal harm to others. The mother is a fully sentient being, her happiness is of great value. The foetus is totally dependent on its mother and is not sentient. What good is achieved if the mother is forced to look after an foetus/child that she does not want right through its first twenty or so years? The mother, and in many cases the child, suffers.

Concluding remarks

A late-term abortion is a different matter. The foetus is somewhat sentient, and we need to consider the greater trauma to the mother and to the clinic or hospital staff where the abortion is carried out. Here more consideration needs to be given to the balance of good and bad likely to be achieved.

Index