Women’s Reproductive Rights – An Ethical Perspective
Women have the natural, and unalienable right to control their own fecundity. The notion that a woman can be forced to have a child against her will defies the basic precept of an unalienable right. “Unalienable rights” means those rights which belong to individuals as part of nature, and which every person is entitled to enjoy. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the U.S. Constitution or any law for their existence. The philosopher John Locke, who provided the intellectual inspiration for Thomas Jefferson’s “unalienable rights” assertion in the Declaration of Independence, expressed it this way: “No one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.”
Admittedly there is a tension created between the “rights” of the mother and an unborn child. The ethical question is when is a women’s reproductive rights paramount, when does it begin to shift to the unborn child and ultimately when does the unborn child’s rights predominate? I would argue that during the first sixteen weeks of pregnancy a woman has a natural and absolute right to terminate any pregnancy if she does not wish to have a child. No other reason is necessary.
After sixteen weeks the issues become somewhat more complex. Though a woman retains the right to terminate a pregnancy from the sixteenth to the twenty-fourth week, a reasonable person would expect that sound reason would underlie such a decision and it would not be made capriciously. Among the more common reasons for choosing to terminate a pregnancy are fetal abnormalities discovered after sixteenth week (e.g. amniocentesis results), and danger to either the physical or mental well being of the mother. Clearly one would hope that women would exercise this right thoughtfully, but even if they don’t the balance of rights still favors the mother.
If we look to nature for some guidance we find that natural abortion, miscarriage occurs as a defensive mechanism to prevent severely deformed children from being born. Approximately 90% of miscarriages are the result of a genetic abnormality and generally occur within the first twelve weeks. Nature is of course imperfect in the process of natural selection, which is why we perform tests such as amniocentesis. It is therefore logical to extend to the mother the right to make the ultimate decision of whether or not to bring into the world a child with a severe congenital abnormality.
After twenty-four weeks the unborn child’s right rights predominate. It would be a rare and unusual circumstance that would require a physician to choose between the life of the mother and the life of the child.
While I agree with the Supreme Court’s decisions in Roe v. Wade and Casey, I would have preferred that the justices would have reasoned differently and declared elective abortion a women’s unalienable right which no law can abrogate. The decision that the ninth amendment implies a right to privacy in such matters just opened up the door to endless legal palaver on a subject that according to natural law is above legal debate.
The right of a woman to protect herself against an unwanted pregnancy is absolute. Most contraceptives prevent pregnancy by either suppressing ovulation (oral contraceptives), creating a barrier (condoms, diaphragm) or incapacitating sperm (spermicides). However, some forms of contraception have maliciously been mischaracterized as inducing abortions specifically, those that prevent implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus, such as an IUD and the morning after pill.
The first principle that must be delineated is conception is not pregnancy.
Pregnancy only occurs if the fertilized egg implants in the maternal uterus. To confirm pregnancy we test for the presence of serum b-hCG (pregnancy test), which is produced by the embryo and secreted into the maternal bloodstream after it implants in the endometrium, the lining of the uterus. Thus, any intervention that prevents implantation, prevents pregnancy, and is for ethical purposes a contraceptive. Although, the literal meaning of the word contraceptive is to prevent conception, it has come to be used in a broader sense as protection against pregnancy.
It is instructive to again look to nature for guidance. While it is impossible to know with certainty the percentage of fertilized eggs that fail to implant in the endometrium, we do know that it is a very common occurrence. This is the reason we do not consider a woman to be pregnant until the fetus has implanted and there is a comingling of nutrients and other critical substances between mother and child.
It is every women right to bear a child, if she so wishes. Moreover, it is abnormal for woman under the age of 45 to be unable to have a child. With the possible exception of the United States this principle is recognized in every other western country. In the United States for reasons that are difficult to comprehend infertility is not necessarily considered a disorder and therefore most insurance companies are not required to cover the expense of infertility treatment e.g. IVF. As an excuse, legislative bodies and insurance companies use the occasional abuse of reproductive technology, such as the recent octuplet controversy, to justify their decisions.
Having been involved in reproductive research for more than 20 years, I was incredulous when I read that practitioners had assisted in the conception and birth of eight infants. First reports from Los Angeles seemed to be touting a miracle. The only miracle would be if these unfortunate eight children avoid severe developmental problems. The objective of Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) should always be one pregnancy - one child. I understand that current ART techniques will result in twins, which is acceptable but not ideal. It is time we adopted the European standard and forbade the transfer of more than 3 embryos in any IVF procedure. Lack of such a rule clearly leads to unethical abuses that put the health of the mother and children at high risk. It is also a disservice to women in general. How will we ever convince insurance companies that universal coverage for infertility treatment is a woman’s right if they can read about its abuses in their morning paper?
You make many claims of ethical absolutes. For example, a mother has an absolute right to kill her living human fetus for any reason (perhaps even capriciously, as you suggest in the next paragraph) up to 16 weeks. Why 16 weeks? The heart was beating by 21 days after conception.
You say she still has the absolute right to kill her fetus from 16 to 24 weeks (but she should think it over first). Why 24 weeks? Do think the fetus begins to have rights at 24 weeks?
You say that fetal abnormalities are a good reason to kill a fetus. Many people must agree, because 90% of babies diagnosed with Downs Syndrome are aborted. Why do you believe a person with Downs Syndrome has less rights than a person without that condition? And you have the gall to call selective abortion “natural selection!” There’s nothing natural about it. This is the “natural selection” of eugenics, and we all know where that went.
Another bizarre absolute assertion with no basis: Every woman has the right to bear a child. Really? Does every man have the right to father a child–even if he lacks the physical ability?
You call this “An Ethical Perspective”? You give no basis for your ethics. These are just your personal views. You base these claims on no authority, nor even logical reasoning.
I prefer to base my ethical view of life on unchanging truths: God made mankind in His image, and He gave it value.
April 9th, 2009 at 7:35 am
Au contraire, I am not an absolutist but a relativist and believe that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to science, culture, society, and historical context, and are not absolute. I see the obvious tension between the rights of a woman and the rights of a fetus. The absolutist view is that a zygote is a human being. If that were true, nature would be creating at least 2 or 3 “never born” human beings for each one that is actually born. Aristotle was no scientist and his understanding of natural law is inferior to our own.
As for a young women’s right to have a child – I will stick with John Locke and Thomas Jefferson – “We hold these truths to be self-evident”.
April 9th, 2009 at 9:40 am
Are you implying that a woman’s right to abort a baby up to 16 weeks for any reason–and a baby up to 24 weeks for a slightly greater reason–is a self-evident truth?
What scientific, cultural, societal, and historical reasons are there to say that a human life at 17 weeks deserves more protection than at 16 weeks–or that 25-week babies deserve more protection that 24-week babies?
Or are you just pulling numbers out of a hat to fit your political ideology?
April 10th, 2009 at 8:50 am
My reference to “self-evident” was strictly to dispute your assertion that it was not the right of a young woman to have a child, if she so desires. As for the question of at what week abortion is an absolute right vs. a relative right, I am not the first nor will I be the last to assert this position. Virtually every civilized society has looked at the scientific, cultural and historical evidence and promulgated laws and regulations that support this basic thesis. The rules in Europe and the United States are for practical purposes the same.
I fear you confuse ethics with religion. Religion can be either ethical or unethical. The classic example of an unethical religious belief is the advocacy of the God given right to Crusade, Holy War or Jihad. Religious belief is for an individual and should not be imposed upon society.
April 10th, 2009 at 9:31 am
I do not believe that in the time of Locke and Jefferson that terminating a pregnancy was in the in the consideration set when the Bill of Rights” was written as Planned Parenthood or other similar organizations did not exist. So to say that abortion, is the womens “inalienable right” whether it be 16 days or 16 weeks is without precedent in the context of the time of the writings of Locke and Jefferson.
I am not one who would confuse religion with ethics as following the one true God there is no contradiction or confusion.
Life is a blessing not to be terminated in the name of convenience for the mother. That said, God has granted us our free will to do and to believe as we wish, right or wrong. If our Creator had not granted us this then what would be the point to our lives on this earth? Abortion is not a religous issue it is an issue of whether we as a society respect for life or not.
When a life is destoyed it affects all of us. It tears at the fabric of what connects us to each other as a society and cheapening the value of life reducing it to a base commodity product. What organizations like Planned Parenthood do not tell young women prior to terminating a pregnancy is the emotional scars that they will carry with them the rest of their lives.
I wonder what would happen to planned Parenthood and the abortion industry if interviews of women who had, had abortions 6 months to one year earlier were put in front of all women considering abortion.
April 12th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
There is a difference between religion and ethics. Although, you may believe that the rules of absolute good and evil have been laid down by your god, many do not believe in your god, and some do not believe in any god at all. Therefore, in my opinion, your religious views cannot be used to construct an argument one way or another for an ethical dispute unless you have a well thought-out reasoning behind them. For example, if you were to tell me that you believed abortion was wrong because the fetus possesses all the qualities that make human life valuable, enough so that the right to life eclipsed that of the mother’s right to privacy, health, etc. and gave that list, I would disagree, but it would constitute a logically based argument that could be considered and opposed. However, a statement that abortion is wrong because the zygote is “made in god’s image” can simply be ignored if the reader does not agree with your religious viewpoint.
I believe that the mother’s right to life supercedes that of the fetus until birth. The decision concerning the appropriate time to terminate the pregnancy, or whether to terminate, should belong solely to the physician and the mother in cases wherein the mother’s life is at risk.
On abortion in which the mother’s physical health is not in significant peril I fully support the right to terminate before the advent of brain function in the fetus.
One cannot argue simply that the destruction of any life affects us all, there is no evidence to support such a claim. However, one may easily argue that a human life should not be ended by a third-party on the same basis that homicide cannot be condoned. The quintessential traits that make us human include the ability to be rational, emotional, and acting beings. However, a fetus cannot in any known case consciously do these things before 16 weeks, in most fetuses brain activity develops even later. Before the point in which the fetus develops these specific traits of humanity, I would argue that it is not an individual “person” with the same value as any mature human, but rather simply a chunk of tissues.
I do not have the time to review and edit this post as I would like, but I believe it presents an accurate representation of my opinions.
April 20th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
I am wondering if those who are so supportive of the right of a fetus over a woman, hold that same bias toward the untold deaths caused by war?
April 25th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Hi. I just wanted to say I appreciate your reasoned and logical responses to the people who act as though a woman’s right to chose what happens to their bodies does not exist. Its heartening especially to see a “conservative” (though it appears as though you are more fiscally conservative than anything) who is able to separate religion and reality.
I disagree with a lot of the things you say on your blog, but I appreciate your ability to reason and argue with some sense. It is refreshing to actually find someone who thinks with their brain and basis their ideas and decisions on logic, rather than belief.
May 1st, 2009 at 5:19 am
@ Amanda,
Thank you, I realize we will not always agree on all subjects but at least we can all reason together. It may surprise you but I do not consider myself a conservative even a fiscal conservative. I do believe however, that liberal or conservative - left or right - we all have an obligation to be fiscally responsible for our nation and our children.
May 1st, 2009 at 7:37 am