This is a continuation from part 1 where the background facts and the deductions made on the basis of them were laid out succinctly. In this section I make the assumption that readers have read through the first part and shall delve straight into the laying out of my views on abortion.

I hold that there exists a very real moral dimension to abortion and that abortion is an act with moral implications regardless of circumstances. However the moral implications of abortion are empathically not to be considered a constant throughout the process of pregnancy but is representative of 5 primary moral phases, each representative of exponential increases in relative moral implications of any abortion performed.

1. Pre conception (hours-days (if ovary is not ready))
   
2. Pre embedded (4-6 days)
   
3. Pre neural formation (17-20 days)
   
4. Pre embryonic completion (approx 8 weeks)
   
5. Post embryonic completion (beyond 8 weeks)

I have shaded the stages in accordance to the moral acceptability of abortion. The pre-conception phase refers to the point directly before fertilization of an ovary and any point of time before that incident occurs. This also includes the moral implications involved before sexual intercourse even occurs (ovulation cycles and male discharges all represent missed opportunities but it would be nonsensical to consider such as acts of abortion) but for the purpose of this theme it refers to the period of time between intercourse and fertilization.

Since the moral implications increase exponentially over time it so follows that abortion should be dealt with swiftly when desired. Doing so terminates a pregnancy at the earliest time possible and therefore at a stage of least complexity.

Yet some would argue that the abortion of even a pregnancy in its initial stage is killing and therefore murder. There are two blatant problems with such an argument however. The first is that terms such as murder paint out the person carrying out an abortion to be a criminal, a sinner or some other kind of wrong-doer, all without trial of context. The second is that an embryo in the initial stage has nothing that resembles a brain or a nervous system. Therefore at such a stage, just as brain death is the determinant of the revocation of an adult person’s status of being ‘alive’, so too is the lack of a brain representative of a missing ingredient to granting the status of being ‘alive’ to the would-be child.

Some would argue that there can be no comparison as time would produce a brain and also a child but the truth is that prior to the commencement of the development of a brain an embryo has no more or less desire to be born than a volcano has to erupt. It is a purely natural biological process and an embryo has not the ability to feel, to think, to remember or even to have a will. Therefore the would-be child is not yet an individual but is a biological life-form that has the potential to become a life-form.

It is for this reason that an act of abortion prior to brain development does have moral implications but of a much lesser magnitude when compared to an act of abortion after brain development. The embryo prior to brain development has no will of its own nor does it have the ability to have a will.

It is at this point that I shall introduce the would-be mother into the picture. Unlike an embryo prior to brain development a would-be mother does have a will and does have her own interests to look out for.

Opponents of abortion prop up the interests of the would-be child and claim that those interests are not sufficiently considered. On many occasions they are correct, as the vast majority of the cases they cite are of abortions of would-be children long after brain development. However when one pitches the interests of the mother against those of the would-be child at a stage prior to brain development, the would-be child has no interests.

So, to recapitulate and summarize, my view is that abortion is an issue with moral implications that become exponentially greater the further into a pregnancy it is performed. For this reason cases where abortions are desired should be encouraged at the earliest so as to marginalize moral implications.

On the other hand, an embryo with a brain, and therefore with a potential will and interest, should be granted protection within reason. This effectively means that abortions beyond the 3rd week into pregnancy should be constrained except in stringent circumstances, the 3 weeks offering more than sufficient time for a would-be mother to decide upon whether to proceed with a pregnancy or not (including instances of rape, unplanned pregnancy, failed contraceptive, etc.)

In the event that a would-be child should pose a potentially serious threat to a would-be mother’s health and other options such as delivery by cesarean section proves not to be a viable option then abortion may be resorted to.

Abortion may also be resorted to in the event of malformation that is very serious, beyond correction and compensation or that is likely to cause a significant degree of suffering in the long term.

Furthermore, should the would-be mother desire to proceed with a pregnancy then third parties are not granted the right to pressure her towards abortion. The exception is the unlikely event that there are simply insufficient resources to sustain the child (this refers to a context of famine or equivalent). Such becomes necessity, not choice.

This mostly outlines my views on abortion, falling within a category of its own. It is likely that I shall be following up with a third part drawing in comparisons with the pro-life and pro-choice lobbies.

This entry was posted on Saturday, January 5th, 2008 at 10:14 pm and is filed under James Cauchi. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.