Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Questionable conservative thinking in the United States

By Peter Bowden - posted Wednesday, 6 July 2022


The major reason for allowing abortion revolves around the question of why is killing a person, or a foetus, wrong? Thou shalt not kill is the sixth Commandment given by God to Moses about 1440 BC. We then need to ask ourselves why God, or Moses, if it was he who wrote the ten commandments, decided that killing was wrong.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator. 1 Corinthians 11:7 tells us that we are created in the image of God.

The case of Argentina, a strongly Catholic country, which recently legalised abortion, should be mentioned. The current Pope Francis, who is Argentinian, and the first pope from outside Europe since Gregory III in the eighth century, objected to the bill. Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro also objected: "I deeply regret for the lives of Argentinian children, now subject to being ended in the bellies of their mothers with the state's agreement." Bolsonaro politically is far right, however, whereas the incumbent Argentine government in Argentina is to the left.

Advertisement

Supporters of the Argentine bill said the bill also sought to eradicate the clandestine abortions that have caused more than 3000 deaths in the country since 1983, according to official figures. This is one additional reason for supporting legalised abortion – to reduce the harm done by backyard abortions.

But if we are not entirely sure that there is a god, and therefore remove the religious reason, why then is it wrong to kill? Two reasons are offered: one is that we cause grief to those close to the killed person, to his/her family, and that is a wrong. This probably was Moses' major underlying reason (if he wrote the ten commandments).

In this first case, the mother-to-be is the closest relative. The decision to abort may be a difficult one, but it is her decision. If she makes the decision, then it is hers alone. She is the person closest to the unborn child.

Clearly also, if a child is not wanted, it is preferable to terminate as a foetus. It is the lesser of two harms.

The second reason for the moral justification of an abortion is that the killing destroys any expectations that the victim has about their own lives; be they long term or even their plans for tomorrow. In short, we have a desire to keep living, to fulfil our plans for tomorrow; or next week. To take our expectations away from us is a wrong. But foetuses, even new-borns, do not have that expectation.

This second reason for agreeing to an abortion, that an unborn child has no expectations of life, is a valid reason. In fact, a new-born does not even have a fully formed brain, not reaching that stage until into a few months into its life after birth

Advertisement

This is the reason of Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University. He asserts that we see ourselves as a continuing long-term beings. New-borns, like foetuses, are incapable "of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time. They are not rational, self-conscious beings with a desire to live". Since, in Singer's criteria, personhood hinges on these factors, killing a new-born (or foetus) is not the same as killing a person.

In 1983, Singer published an article in the journal Pediatrics titled "Sanctity of Life or Quality of Life?" He contended that there is no moral burden to keep alive human infants who are born with mental retardation or other major developmental problems such as Down's syndrome. His assertion has been heavily criticised.

Does the embryo suffer? Presumably not if it is aborted before it has a nervous system; and even if it is advanced enough to have a nervous system it surely suffers less than, say, cows in a slaughterhouse.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

21 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Peter Bowden is an author, researcher and ethicist. He was formerly Coordinator of the MBA Program at Monash University and Professor of Administrative Studies at Manchester University. He is currently a member of the Australian Business Ethics Network , working on business, institutional, and personal ethics.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Peter Bowden

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Peter Bowden
Article Tools
Comment 21 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy