ABORTION
Claire Foster ©
2006
No one thinks having an abortion is a good thing to do. The question is, is it always wrong or are
there circumstances when it is the better course of action? The following paragraphs explain what
happens at the beginning of a human life and asks some questions.
Development of the embryo/fetus
At conception, when
the egg is fertilised, the unique genetic code (genome) is fixed which
determines the characteristics of the human being the embryo is to become. At that stage it isn’t known whether the
embryo will become one or more people.
At about the eighth cell division (four or five days after conception),
if there are two embryos, each will have its own placenta by now. They will become twins. At 14 days, when the embryo has travelled up
the fallopian tube and is implanting in the womb wall, the single embryo may
divide. If that happens, two fetuses
share one placenta, and become identical twins because their genome is
identical. If the division of the
embryo happens at around day 12, the twins will share the same amniotic sac
(the fluid in which the fetus grows) and these may become conjoined (‘siamese’) twins.
Once the embryo is
implanted in the womb wall it starts to grow rapidly. At 10 weeks, the central nervous system starts to develop which
means that the fetus can feel pain.
When does an egg/sperm/embryo become a human
being?
Viability as the deciding factor in abortion
The Infant Life
(Preservation) Act 1927 made it a criminal offence to destroy the life of any
child capable of being born alive, setting the limits of viability at 28
weeks. The Abortion Act (1967) upheld
this. In 1990, when the Human
Fertilisation and Embryology Act was passed (see below) this limit was reduced
to 24 weeks, since it was by then possible for doctors to keep a fetus born at that
stage alive.
Does the ability to survive outside the womb
make you a human being with equal rights to other living human beings?
Presence of the primitive streak as the
deciding factor in embryo research
The Human
Fertilisation and Embryology Act (1990) put a 14 day limit on embryos being used
for research purposes. No embryo is
permitted to be kept alive after that stage, except for those which are
cryopreserved for couples’ future children.
The idea was that up until that point the embryo might divide into two,
and was not, therefore, a person in any meaningful sense, including in
potential. We don’t say that identical
twins are actually one person. So until
the embryo ‘knows’ if it is one or two people, arguably it isn’t really a
person at all.
Does the definite appearance of one or two
embryos with their unique genetic code mean a human being now exists? Does it have the same rights as human beings
living outside the womb?
The Abortion Act 1967
The prevailing idea
behind the Abortion Act was not to defend women’s rights over their own
bodies. Nor was it to devalue the
fetus. Rather it sought to
decriminalise the actions of doctors who, on compassionate grounds, gave women
abortions because they really believed that was the right thing to do. The case that led to the Act was one of a
girl in her early teens who was raped by a group of Guardsmen and fell
pregnant. Public opinion was outraged
at the idea that her procurement of an abortion should be a criminal offence. The other factor weighing in the balance was
that many women were (and always have been) procuring abortions illegally
(‘back street abortions’), and these abortions, subject to no regulatory
framework, were serious threats to the health of the women going through with
them.
In order to procure an
abortion in this country, a woman has to obtain the permission of two
doctors. The doctors have to sign a
form stating that they are satisfied that the woman’s pregnancy would be of
significant risk to her physical or mental health.
The vast majority of General
Practitioners will sign this form if a woman wants them to, without regard to
serious questions of health or morality.
The loophole in the law is that a woman’s distress at having an unwanted
pregnancy could in every event damage her mental health.
GPs and surgeons who,
on grounds of conscience, do not wish to have anything to do with abortion are
within their rights to refuse to sign forms or perform abortions. GPs who do not sign abortion forms may refer
their patients to a colleague who would sign.
If abortion is wrong, is it morally as bad to
refer your patient to someone who will procure the abortion for her as to sign
the form yourself?
Surgeons generally reckon that performing
abortions is among the worst of their surgical duties. Nobody likes doing it or thinks it’s
particularly right or good. Are those
surgeons who refuse to perform abortions on grounds of moral conscience merely
leaving the dirty work to their colleagues and copping out?
The feminist perspective
A driving force behind
the abortion issue is the women’s movement.
This movement sees a historical subservience of women to men in which
the woman’s role as childbearer has played a major part. Because the woman has to bear the children,
her place is at home and her freedom is severely restricted. The children were of the mother and father,
and the woman did not have sole rights over them. Hence children tied a woman to her man and her home. With the advent of contraception the woman
gained considerable control over her child bearing potential. The Abortion Act demands that two doctors’
permissions be sought for an abortion to be lawful.
Given that the fetus while in the womb is part
of a woman’s body, is it her right to determine what should happen to that
fetus? Why should she seek permission
from doctors for it to be destroyed? Or
does the wider society have a say as well?
Welfare of the fetus
There are goal-based
or utilitarian arguments to justify abortion.
They are related to the welfare of the potential child. If a fetus is disabled or has genetic
abnormalities that will cause disabilities in later life, it could be argued
that it would be better for that child never to have been born.
Is it better to live with disability than not
to live at all?
If the disability involves significant pain and
suffering, does that strengthen the argument in favour of aborting fetuses on
the grounds of disability?
Is it ever justified for parents to seek
abortion on the grounds that they don’t think they can cope with a disabled
child?
Welfare of the mother
Sometimes the mother’s
life is endangered by a pregnancy.
Sometimes the pregnancy is caused by rape.
When should the welfare of the mother take
precedence over the welfare of the child?