Imagine all your life experiences never happened, and you never existed. Why? Because you were aborted before birth. Abortion is a controversial issue, regulated by law, religion and beliefs. Should abortion be allowed? Or should it be illegal? Some say that life begins at conception, and when aborting a child, you are taking away their will to live. Others say that life begins at birth, and in circumstances of rape, internal injury, or disability, abortion should be allowed. Yet considering both of these cases, could abortion have some regulation saying that besides rape, incest, risks of disability or a mother’s life, abortion should be illegal? One great mind could have been cheated the chance to live only because the mother felt she could not raise it.

                All over the world people have beliefs, rules, or laws that regulate their way of life. Abortion is one of these beliefs/ laws that are or need to be regulated. China is a major country regulating for abortion because of the overpopulation; “A father was fine 600,000 yuan ($78,000) for breaking the ‘one-child’ policy.” China also has no time limit on when the mother can abort her child, where as countries including America, Russia, and Briton can have an abortion up to the 12th week, or even 24th week of the pregnancy. However, statistically since there is one abortion in every four pregnancies a year, and close to half are illegal, some 70,000 women die from having an abortion and “abortion is either banned outright or is confined to cases of rape, incest or risk to the mother's life across most of the Muslim world, Catholic Latin America and Africa” (International: A question of life and death; Abortion).

                Since in the US, 15-25% of all pregnancies are terminated, would it be considered abortion if the pill were to be sold over the counter to terminate a pregnancy (International: A question of life and death; Abortion)? In the article titled, “The Little Pill that could,” by Anne Friedman, she writes how “methotrexate” an FDA-approved drug that was used as treatment for cancer, arthritis, and Crohn's disease, and “mifepristone” were pushed  to be regulated and readily available. Ten percent of abortions in the US are though the “pill method,” and many people in countries that outlaw abortion use the pill. However, a doctor cannot legally prescribe the pill without consent from the FDA since it is a Phase 4 drug. Friedman writes, “If abortion were ever outlawed in the United States, mifepristone would become perhaps the most important-and the most common-abortion option.” And for this reason, pro-choicers are trying to find ways to prove that this drug can treat cancer as well as abortions in order for it to be more frequently prescribed.  Yet why should irresponsible women be able to eliminate their “problem” so easily?

Through this factual information, would a woman be more likely to have an abortion after knowing this? Sometimes the case is not that they want to have an abortion, but they will be in danger, like in China, if they do not have one. All these facts would not regulate one law that says abortion is not allowed unless in the case of rape, incest, or life risk. This is because everyone will make a decision, being pro-life or pro-choice, to speak for the unborn child, in the case of their own life experiences. If it were my choice, I would not abort my child because I could be risking the chance for the next greatest person to live. And there are other options, such as adoption, where people who cannot physically have children, would love to give an innocent child a life they deserve. 

Bibliography

"International: A question of life and death; Abortion. " The Economist 

            19 May 2007: 66.  Research Library Core. ProQuest.  Hagerty Library.  10 Feb. 2008 <http://www.proquest.com/> Ann Friedman. "THE

             LITTLE PILL THAT COULD. " The American Prospect  1 Jan. 2007: 17-

             18. Social Science Module. ProQuest.  ***INSERT Library name or

             system, City, State***.  11 Feb. 2008 <http://www.proquest.com/>

Giovanna Intili

Andrew McCann

English 102-155

February 17, 2008

Abortion: Out Law it or Regulate it?

            “Abortion.” When hearing this word, many issues, debates and opinions rise. What do you think about abortion? Is it killing an innocent unborn child, or is abortion evacuating an undeveloped zygote? This controversial issue, separated by politics and religion, will probably never be solved. Some believe the mother has a right to abortion and can determine when it is necessary. Others say it is not an issue that can be solved by worldly or religious beliefs. However, is it morally wrong? In the essay titled, “Abortion, Killing and Maternal Moral Authority,” Soran Reader argues that the difference between moral and immoral abortion depends on the relationship between a woman and her fetus. When compared to the article, “Faith in Hiding: Are There Secular Grounds for Banning Abortion?” by Thomas W. Clark, he argues the secular side of abortion; it cannot be regulated by belief or religion. When confronted with a controversial issue such as this one, laws will not determine the outcome.

            Does motherhood start at the beginning of conception? In the essay, “Abortion, Killing and Maternal Moral Authority,” author, Sorna Reader, argues that the morality of abortion depends on the relationship between a woman and her fetus. If a woman is pregnant but does not accept the fetus as an individual, it is not morally wrong to abort it. However, if the woman does relate to her fetus as mother to a child, abortion would be considered as killing. Reader explains this concept by writing:

If the pregnant woman takes on the relationship as “mother-child,” this constitutes the fetus as an enormously valuable being: no matter how undeveloped the fetus, it is now rational for the woman to mourn its loss should it die, and it would be wrong of the woman to renege on that commitment on blithe or callous grounds. It would also be a moral wrong for anyone else to do anything that threatened the well being of the fetus or the mother-fetus dyad. In contrast, if the pregnant woman experiences the relationship as that of “occupied-occupier,” the fetus is thereby constituted as not a valuable being at all: its fragile hold on life, wholly mediated through its carrier, is insufficient to place any moral requirement on the woman to continue to gestate it, or on anyone more distantly related to it (135).

To further explain this notion, the author uses examples of other authors’ text. Reader talks about “Abortion, intimacy and the duty to gestate,” written by Margaret Little. Little uses the idea that, “Bodily intertwinement is only one dimension of the relationship, which includes knowledge of and concern for the fetus as your child” (135). Additionally, Reader writes about Catriona Mackenzie’s article, “Abortion and Embodiment,” in the Australian Journal of Philosophy, by explaining that, “In early pregnancy, the pregnant woman does not experience the fetus as distinct from herself. But as pregnancy progresses, and once she has made her decision and commitment, the pregnant woman begins to experience her fetus as a separate but dependent and loved individual—as her child” (135). These two theories describe the way relationship between woman and embryo determine the morality of abortion. Knowledge that a zygote is dependent on a mother’s body draws a line between justified abortion and morally wrong abortion.

            In the article, “Faith in Hiding: Are There Secular Grounds for Banning Abortion?” Thomas W. Clark argues about abortion and how it can become a secular matter. The ideas that, “embryos, babies, children, and adults are all stages of human life,” and, “All these stages are equally alive, they all are human, and therefore, the reasoning goes, all have equal worth,” show the pro-life standpoint of the issue (1). But there are other arguments that include whether or not a woman should be burdened with a child: if they do not want to take care of it, or if they become pregnant through rape, or if there are health risks that can cause lifelong damage or even death. Clark makes the point that in order for abortion to be regulated, it cannot be related to personal beliefs or religion. Clark writes, “The current secular consensus, however, is that all stages of human life do not merit equal protection… it's an uncontroversially easy choice to allow a woman to live, not her fetus, when that choice is forced by a dangerous pregnancy” (3). He continues by arguing that there are not any secular beliefs that living beings are “inferior to the unborn” (4). This means a zygote does not have precedence over a mother’s decision to abort it or not. Since the woman has been living, and a zygote, considered living or not, is in a development stage, a woman is able to end its growth.

            Clark, like Reader, brings into his article the idea that justified abortion relies on relationships. However Clark argues that this idea is more of an anti-abortionist’s belief and states, “Once a child is born, then yes, the mother-child relationship has an overriding secular priority, but the obligation to maintain that ‘relationship’ from the moment of conception can't be assumed without also assuming that the zygote is the moral equivalent of an uncontroversially existing person” (5). Reader makes a more substantial argument since she implies a more practical outlook. She writes about how mother-child relationships begin when a mother recognizes her child is dependent on her body. A reader would assume the author means that the child is connected to the mother through the umbilical cord, resulting in a direct relationship. It does, however, depend on the mother and what she regards as a relationship, which both authors determine.

                In comparison to Reader’s essay about mother and child relationships, another article titled “Before Roe vs. Wade,” by Michael E Telzrow, talks about the beliefs of abortion since the 19^th century. In the 1800’s there were no tests that could tell if a woman was pregnant or not.  So the population relied on phenomenon of “quickening.” The beginning of life was perceived through the first knowledge of fetal movement. Telzrow writes, “. Common law did not formally recognize the existence of life, or even the existence of a fetus, until the pre-born child's movements were made manifestly apparent” (1).  As a result abortions were illegal if preformed after quickening (around the midpoint of pregnancy.)  Reader somewhat touches on this point when saying that at the beginning of pregnancy an unborn child is not determined as a dependent but connected entity, whereas later on in pregnancy it is determined dependent.

            When reading, “Abortion, Killing and Maternal Moral Authority,” and, “Faith in Hiding: Are There Secular Grounds for Banning Abortion?” neither of the authors take sides on the rights and wrongs of abortion. They give more of a mediator’s standpoint. One talks about relationships and the morals and justifications of killing an unborn child, and the other talks about the secular position of the topic. Reader uses more examples of other authors’ text to defend her thesis, where Clark only uses a few examples. However, in Clark’s article, he uses factual and historical information where Reader’s essay is based on theory of other authors’ writings. Overall, both authors take a strong stand behind their arguments and do not distract from over exaggerated statistics and personal belief. Although Reader raises a great point in her essay when she states, “No one would try to explain how the loss of life in war is justified by saying the people who die don’t matter, so how could it be helpful to say fetuses don’t matter?” (134). In conclusion, people rely on their own opinions to live their lives. What is morally wrong to some is ok to others. Therefore, abortion is an issue that, even if regulated, would still occur.