We seem to take the moral status of a being to depend on its metaphysical or physical status. For example, we think humans and rocks deserve different kinds of treatment because they are different metaphysically or physically. So it might be that the moral status of an embryo or fetus depends on its metaphysical or physical status: whether it is a person, whether it is conscious, whether it has a soul, etc.
Moral status alone might not determine whether abortion is morally permissible, though, for some thinkers believe other factors might override the moral status of the fetus. The situation is complicated by the fact that the embryo and fetus are undergoing continual physical development. The physical development of the embryo and fetus occur during a nine-month period. First an egg cell oocyte or ovum is fertilized by a sperm cell spermatozoon during a 24 hour long process.
During this time the sperm cell moves through the area surrounding the egg cell, enters the egg cell, and merges its genetic material with the genetic material in the egg cell. Completion of this process results in a single-celled zygote with chromosomes from both sperm and egg cells. About 30 hours after fertilization is complete the zygote begins cell division and the number of cells increases.
This is different than fraternal twins from two distinct fertilized egg cells. At nine cells, the cells start arranging themselves into a pattern. At four days after fertilization the organism moves to the uterus, floats for about two days, and then it attaches itself to the uterine wall between the seventh and twelfth day implantation.
At the end of the first week the organism is attached to the uterine wall and is being nourished by the mother. After implantation, cells further differentiate and the embryo is increasingly structured. There is some indication that brain waves can be recorded by about six weeks. At nine weeks the organism is a fetus, the heart is almost fully developed by the tenth week, within a few more weeks the brain is fully formed, and by the fifteenth week the eyes face forward and the ears are on the side of the head.
Birth is usually after thirty-nine weeks. During the process of embryonic and fetal development, the organism is alive, attached to the mother for life support, and increasingly resembling a human baby in appearance.
Some thinkers believe that the moral status of the embryo or fetus changes depending on its particular stage of physical development. For those thinkers, before a particular point abortion is morally permissible, while after that point it is impermissible. But there is disagreement about where that line of demarcation is: viability when it can survive outside the womb , quickening detectable movement within the womb , brain waves occurring, resembling a baby in appearance, etc. Unfortunately, due to the tremendous acrimony each camp feels toward the other, usually neither side attempts to understand the other.
People hold views about the morality of abortion for various reasons, some political or emotional. But it is possible to depict one or more lines of reasoning each side implicitly relies on when they are thinking and arguing rationally. The basic pro-life position depends on an analogy drawn or assumed between the embryo or fetus and a normal, innocent human being or person. It is believed that the embryo or fetus is relevantly similar to the normal human being or person and so it has the same right to life and should be treated in the same way as any other being with a right to life.
There are two basic lines of reasoning assumed by different pro-choice groups. One line of reasoning sees the embryo or fetus as not a person and so not having the right to life possessed by a person. The other line of reasoning grants that an embryo or fetus might be a person but sees other factors or considerations as outweighing or overriding any right to life of the fetus. The second argument might be used by pro-lifers who believe that rape, incest, or saving the life of the mother are such overriding factors, but most pro-choicers have in mind others factors such as the following:.
There might be debate among pro-choicers over whether the fact that a new child would be a minor inconvenience would be sufficient as a factor to override or outweigh a right to life. The first argument would seem to have an easier time justifying abortion because it could support the view that no particular reason need be given to justify an abortion.
However, some pro-choicers hold that even through an embryo or fetus is not a person and has no right to life, it deserves some sort of moral consideration. Abortion should not be taken lightly. The embryo or fetus deserves respect. Abortion should not be undertaken for frivolous reasons — such as the potential child not having the preferred eye-color assuming that could be determined. Pro-lifers and pro-choicers can find many places to disagree: the moral status of the embryo or fetus whether it has the right to life , the metaphysical status of the embryo or fetus whether it is a person , and whether moral rights can be overridden and if so what kinds of factors or considerations can override.
One could argue that the first step in rational resolution of the abortion controversy should come from mutual understanding of the various positions. After that would be needed discussion, agreement, and resolution of the many issues involved. Besides the discussion of relevant issues above, here are some other considerations that have been raised.
For example, some people think killing yourself is wrong, most of us think using your body to intentionally hurt another innocent person is wrong, damaging your body through substance abuse is often considered wrong what if you can no longer work to support your family? Is it because it is physically located within the body of the mother? If through some bizarre technology the fetus were physically located outside her body, would the same claim be made?
Many things are supported by other things without the former being a part of the latter — a child is supported by a parent, and a hospital patient is supported by a heart-lung machine, for instance. Is it because the fetus and other tissues are growing from the egg cell that was part of the mother?
The egg cell might have been part of her body, but the sperm cell was not, and the resulting organism is from both. What we have is its own organism with its own genetic makeup and its own body. Arguments by analogy: Much of the thinking on each side of the dispute consists of implicit arguments by analogy.
Pro-life: A fetus and an adult are both persons, so since an adult has a right to life so too does a fetus. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts.
Newsletters Donate My Account. Research Topics. Share this link:. Carrie Blazina is a digital producer at Pew Research Center. Michael Lipka is an editorial manager of religion research at Pew Research Center. Sign up for our weekly newsletter Fresh data delivered Saturday mornings. Where the public stands on key issues that could come before the Supreme Court.
As Texas considers new abortion restrictions, polls show complex debate. Are you a Faith and Flag Conservative? Progressive Left? But in recent years, pro-life activists have been more successful in using that tool to shift the terms of the policy debate. Not everyone in the pro-life movement agrees with this strategic shift. Some believe new scientific findings might work against them.
Others warn that overreliance on scientific evidence could erode the strong moral logic at the center of their cause. The biggest threat of all, however, is not the potential damage to a particular movement.
When scientific research becomes subordinate to political ends, facts are weaponized. Neither side trusts the information produced by their ideological enemies; reality becomes relative. Abortion has always stood apart from other topics of political debate in American culture.
It has remained morally contested in a way that other social issues have not, at least in part because it asks Americans to answer unimaginably serious questions about the nature of human life.
But perhaps this ambiguity, this scrambling of traditional left-right politics, was always unsustainable. Yet physicians often support abortion, even late into fetal development. Malloy is one of many doctors and scientists who have gotten involved in the political debate over abortion. She has testified before legislative bodies about fetal pain—the claim that fetuses can experience physical suffering, perhaps even prior to the point of viability outside the womb—and written letters to the U.
Senate Judiciary Committee. Her career also shows the tight twine between the science and politics of abortion. In addition to her work at Northwestern, Malloy has produced work for the Charlotte Lozier Institute, a relatively new D. Anthony List, a prominent pro-life advocacy organization. Prentice spent years of his career as a professor at Indiana State University and at the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian group founded by James Dobson.
Some pro-life advocates worry about the potential consequences of overemphasizing the authority of science in abortion debates. He was horrified that prenatal diagnosis of the disease often led women to terminate their pregnancies, however, and spent much of his career advocating against abortion. For example: Some people believe emergency contraception, also known as the morning-after pill or Plan B, is an abortifacient, meaning it may end pregnancies. Sulmasy, who openly identifies as pro-life, has argued against this view of the drug—and found it difficult to reach his peers in the movement.
This alone is enough to make even gung-ho pro-life advocates wary. Even with all these internal debates and complications, many in the pro-life movement feel optimistic that scientific advances are ultimately on their side.
0コメント