Abortion

Abortion refers to a range of medical procedures used to terminate a pregnancy. Whether and to what extent induced abortions should be permitted, encouraged, or severely repressed is a social issue that has divided theologians, philosophers, and legislators for centuries. In many parts of the world there is public controversy over the ethical and legal issues of abortion.

Many opponents of abortion base their position on religious doctrine; however, it is possible to oppose the practice on purely humanistic grounds.

Those who believe that abortion should be legally permitted argue that it is wrong to assert control over what happens inside someone else's body. The various arguments are presented below.

Argument Side-by-Side

Arguments for the banning of abortion	Arguments for the legality of abortion
Abortion = murder
Life begins at the moment of conception, or more precisely rather when the being in ensouled. The default inference is that human life begins at the earliest understood moment of human existence, because the exact time of ensoulment has not yet been understood. Thus arises the inference that ensoulment occurs at conception, and though the pro-life position may accept that there are problems with this concept, they nevertheless tend to reject a late-term (or post-birth) view of ensoulment for an early-term concept. (This is influenced by the concept of God's severe punishment for post-ensoulment abortions). Reductive scientific labels of "embryo" or "fetus" are used mask the fact that abortion is the pre-meditated killing of an unborn child. Without drawing this line, how can you decide when life begins? When it's viable, when it's cute, when it talks? Justice demands that children be accorded the same legal protections in utero as they would have without.	In a very real sense, "life" does not begin at conception since both egg and sperm are "alive". However, the potential for a new and distinct human being begins at conception. A pregnancy is defined as the implantation of a fertilized egg into the womb. This distinction is important since modern scientific research suggests that well over 50% and more likely 75-90% of all fertilized eggs are discarded before they implant. An abortion by definition ends a pregnancy. At least 25% of pregnancies end in miscarriage and mostly within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Following the pro-life logic, God allows anywhere from 25-75% of children to die before they are ever born. There has been a noticeable lack of campaigning directed towards stemming this appalling tide of infant death. If, for legal sakes, a line has to be drawn, scholars and judges have work with viability as a common and discernible line, noting before 20 weeks, a fetus' chances of survival outside the womb are nil. However well formed its little fingers, it can not be considered an independent entity in any meaningful sense. Realistic viability is attained at around 25 - 26 weeks and few countries permit abortion after 24 weeks, except in cases of clear risk to the life of the mother.
Abortion damages women's health
Abortion has serious health and psychological consequences for the woman. National Right to Life emphasizes the risk of complications without presenting statistics on the frequency, though they admit that the vast majority are temporary and treatable. They claim that abortion increases the risk of ectopic pregnancy and doubles the risk of future sterility, and they claim that these risks increase with multiple abortions. Some people claim that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer. National Right to Life claims "a growing body of scientific evidence that having an abortion can cause psychological harm to some women." They admit to a lack of information on the prevalence of serious psychological consequences, saying only that, "a Los Angeles Times survey in 1989 found that 56% of women who had abortions felt guilty about it, and 26% 'mostly regretted the abortion.'"	There simply is no breast cancer link. See this article, by a real doctor (!). When used correctly under a doctor's supervision, only 7 deaths have been reported to the CDC since medical abortions were legalized. According to Planned Parenthood, the risk of death in a medication abortion is 1 in 100,000 and that from an early vacuum aspiration abortion is roughly 11 times safer than carrying a child to term, the risk of which is 1 in 10,000. They flatly dismiss any link to future childbearing difficulties. On psychological issues, Planned Parenthood notes the lack of scientific proof for assertions of a widespread "post-abortion syndrome." They claim that the occurrence of long-term emotional problems is similar to that associated with childbirth. Pregnancy is a life changing event. Women will necessarily have serious medical risks and will endure serious pain and suffering carrying a child to term and giving birth. Yet no one proposes laws to stop pregnancy for "women's health" concerns. Women who are pregnant will necessarily face emotional and physical changes regardless of the outcome of the pregnancy. Women who give a child up for adoption may one day think it was the best decision, and may on a different day wish they had raised the baby. Women who have children may look at the life they live and have days they regret the whole thing. No one is cautioning them not to have children much less make it a law. Women who are pregnant and poor, risk their own life and and health as well as the baby's life and health - but the cries for help go largely unheard by the society at large. The only time "pro life" camp offers "health to the woman" as a national issue to be addressed is when abortion is the topic.
"Culture of Life"
Most pro-life arguments rest on the idea that a fetus is a full human being from conception, and that a fetus shares the same rights as any other human being. This argument is often linked to other "respect-for-life" issues such as euthanasia and the death penalty in advocating a "Culture of Life" to replace what advocates see as a "Culture of Death." These ideas were articulated in this form by Pope John Paul II in the encyclical Evangelium Vitae.	The unthinking preference for quantity of life ignores any consideration of quality of life. Furthermore, many pro-life activists and politicians who use this language show a particular disagreement about the "sanctity of human life" when the life in question belongs to a felon or a foreigner.
Comparative Rights
There is no inherent right to abortion. As there are viable alternatives, such as adoption, a woman's freedom ends when its exercise would end a life	Advocates of pro-choice generally believe that a human being's body is inviolable, and the state should not regulate it. Specifically, women should never be forced to be "incubators" for a fetus. Furthermore, adoption is not a viable alternative to abortion because it does not address the problem of unwanted pregnancy; abortion addresses the problem of unwanted pregnancy while averting unwanted parenthood.
Constitutional arguments in United States law Arguments in favor of a fundamental right of choice Women must have a fundamental right to bodily integrity, but this right must be balanced against the state's interest in the potential for life. This balance is resolved with the "undue burden" test (Casey). Women (and couples) have a right to privacy in intimate choices (Roe v. Wade; Griswold v. Connecticut). Discrimination on the basis of biological markers inherent in biological sex is suspect under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and requires strict scrutiny (contra Geduldig v. Aiello, Michael M., which would have to be overruled for this argument to be valid). Otherwise, biological marker-based discrimination enforces stereotypes that the law frowns upon, as seem in U.S. v. Virginia. Further, this type of discrimination is subordinative, and the zeitgeist of the Fourteenth Amendment being anti-subordinative, must be immediately suspect. Griswold v. Connecticut and its progeny (Eisenstadt) outline a fundamental right to consent in childrearing: this is how contraception is constitutionally vindicated. Disallowing abortion eviscerates this right, reading "consent" or "choice" where-ever a condom fails. Originalist/tradition-based counter-arguments ("no tradition of abortion in the U.S., therefore no right") are unavailing. First, tradition is a poor marker for objective reasoning, since the analysis of "tradition" is based on a conscious choice of what narrative to credit (Balkin, Tradition and Betrayal). Further, tradition may be unjust (Loving v. Virginia) and must be read with a level of "generosity" to ensure a just society (Levinson, Constitutional Faith). Textualist counter-arguments ("not in the text of the Constitution") are unavailing. Text is a poor marker for valuable meaning: reading text as complete in and of itself eviscerates cultural norms that the law is based on (Holy Trinity). Further, Constitutional text is written at a high level of abstraction: rights are defined broadly, not enumerated specifically (Ninth Amendment, Griswold v. Connecticut), so rights may exist that lie in the "penumbra" of the specifically enumerated rights. Arguments against a fundamental right of choice There is no mention of abortion in the Constitution, or privacy, or family planning. Further, the right is not fundamental to the national consciousness or deeply rooted in our history. Therefore, it is not a fundamental right (applying Glucksberg or Scalia's VMI dissent). Biblical views As ever, the Bible can be used to cut both ways on this issue, essentially resting on the issues of 'personhood'. 'Pro-life' groups cite the numerous injunctions against murder in both the New and Old Testaments, and argue that this forbids abortion - after all, the foetus was not convicted in a fair trial (it is not judicial execution, which many pro-life conservatives support), and it is not an act of war ( under which circumstances most Christians might accept killing), and thus it is murder. With the minimum age at which a foetus can survive outside its mother being pushed back further and further, in some cases past cut-off dates for abortion, such groups thus argue that foetuses are being aborted that could survive on their own (albeit with medical help) - to abort them, therefore, is murder, as mentioned above, and as Biblically prohibited. There is also a tenuous argument for distinct personhood before birth in Jeremiah 1:5, which states that 'before I formed you in the womb I chose you'; this is commonly interpreted by pro-life groups as implying separate existence before birth, but, given the context, is just as likely to refer to divine foreknowledge. An argument has developed, on the other hand, that the Bible attaches less 'personhood' to foetuses and very young children. Exodus 21:22, a mere ten verses after the above injunction against murder, states that, if a man hits a woman, causing a miscarriage or premature birth, but no serious injury, he should be subject to a court-mediated fine from the woman's husband. If this was the case, then the act of causing a miscarriage could not be construed as 'murder' (since compensation was not biblically allowed for murder). This, while relying on a fair amount of extrapolation beyond the text itself, would seem to justify abortion, as it does not involve the taking of a human life. Furthermore, Numbers 5:11-31 seems to outline a priest-administered test for unfaithfulness, by administering an abortifacient 'bitter water' that would show if a woman had conceived (presumably out of wedlock). There is also some precedent for divinely caused abortions - Hosea 9:11-16 (in which Hosea prays for God to cause Ephraim's women to miscarry), for example. Flying Spaghetti Monster views It seems that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster takes no formal position. See also Essay:Where do you fall in the abortion debate? Essay:Rhetorical analysis of abortion essays Barnett Slepian, doctor Moral panic Spontaneous abortion in humans A very personal account from a Canadian abortion doctor of why he performs abortions despite murder attempts. Essay:Why I oppose abortion Footnotes Appendix: List of studies showing no link between abortion and breast cancer NEJM 1997, 336, 81-5 British Medical Journal 1989, 299, 1430-2 Cancer Causes & Control 1997, 8, 93-108 Lancet 2004, 363, 1007-16 American Journal of Epidemiology 1988, 127, 981-9 British Journal of Cancer 1982, 45, 327-31 American Journal of Epidemiology 1987, 126, 831-41 International Journal of Cancer 1991, 48, 816-20 European Journal of Cancer 1999, 35, 1361-7 Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 2005, 59, 283-7 Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 2003, 12, 209-14 American Journal of Epidemiology 1983, 117, 35-45 Epidemiology 2000, 11, 76-80 International Journal of Cancer 2001, 92, 899-905 Cancer Causes & Control 1997, 8, 841-9 International Journal of Cancer 1996, 65, 401-5 British Journal of Cancer 1990, 62, 122-6 International Journal of Cancer 1993, 215-9 Cancer Causes & Control 1995, 6, 75-82 American Journal of Public Health 1999, 89, 1244-7 British Journal of Cancer 1999, 79, 1923-8 Epidemiology 2000, 11, 177-80 Cancer Causes & Control 2000, 11, 777-81 International Journal of Cancer 1998, 76, 182-8 Abortion articles on RationalWiki Abortion - Abortion doping - History of abortion - Fetus/Fœtus - Crisis pregnancy center - Gonzales v. Carhart - Nuremberg Files - Planned Parenthood - Pro-life - Pro-choice - Reproductive rights - Roe v. Wade - Schlafly, breast cancer and abortion - The Silent Scream - Barnett Slepian