The topic of abortion has been largely argumentative for quite some time and will likely continue this way well into the future. It is not a light-hearted topic as some doctors have even been murdered simply because they were pro-choice and performed abortions. Although, that is an extreme example and obviously outrageously unacceptable, this shows heavy-hearted nature of this topic as it comes from the fact that the decision for a mother to abort her developing baby is not a decision made easily and has serious ramifications on everyone involved no matter the decision made. In addition, the sheer volume of unplanned pregnancies is quite high, meaning this is not a decision that comes up for only 1 out of 100 women, rather it is a decision that came up for 1.2 million U.S. citizen women in 2008 (Sedgh et al, 190). In this essay, rather than give emotional responses to the debate on who is wrong and who is right, a moral look at both the pro-life and pro-choice sides of abortion will be given concluding to show why pro-choice is morally unacceptable. Furthermore, a potential mutual resolution of correctly implementing and practicing forms of contraceptives may make it possible to avoid the conflict from the beginning.

Let us first briefly introduce the opposing sides with the argument of abortion. One side within abortion is the pro-life advocates. They stand firm in their belief that abortions are one way or another morally wrong because killing a developing baby or fetus is unacceptable. A pro-life advocate may believe this for a variety of reasons including, their religious stance, their own judgements/morals, or even their own philosophy. For example, Christians take this stance because the Bible says that any form of abortion is wrong. In result, they obey God the best they can and stand firm in their beliefs of God and what God says. Furthermore, the topic of abortion is somewhat secondary for Christians because it is believed that we should abstain from pre-marital sex. This makes abortion somewhat secondary because by far, most of unplanned pregnancies are in the case of pre-marital sex. Nonetheless, they realize it is still an area of major concern because a lot of women end up having to make this hard decision.

The second side within the argument of abortion is pro-choice. The pro-choice advocates believe that is not wrong to have an abortion. Again, they have this opinion for a variety of reasons. One reason being, that it is clearly a very personal matter for the mother and even father, so the decision should ultimately be left up to them and they should not have to hear the opinion of others. Another common belief by the pro-choice advocates is that sometimes the baby is potentially hazardous to the mother herself and so the choice to abort rather than potentially become harmed by the developing baby is vindicated. Although the pro-choice party believes abortions are ok, most pro-choice advocates believe that having an abortion is only acceptable within a certain time-period because the developing baby is becoming too similar in resemblance to a human. What this means is that in the early stage of fetal-development, some do not see the fetus as human, rather they simply see it as an organism or a cluster of cells at which point an abortion is acceptable. There are many opinions on when the “cut-off” date should be for abortion’s but an extreme case is an abortion should not be considered at or after 15 weeks. This is yet only one more branch of opposition within the argument of abortion.

Clearly, abortion is not a simple debate. Not only are there the two main opposing sides, pro-choice and pro-life, but there are many middle ground stances as well. Not to mention, the debates within each party like the previously mentioned, “How far along in pregnancy is it still acceptable to have an abortion?”. Therefore, we will reduce the argument to something more manageable by taking a moral look at the outlier parties, the pro-life and pro-choice parties, and introduce a potential mutual resolution of correctly implementing and practicing forms of contraceptives making it possible to avoid the conflict from the beginning.

To take a look into the minds of the pro-choice side we will look into Hiller and Prahls article titled “Philosophers and The Issue of Abortion”. As they discuss the pro-choice party they introduce two of the party “leaders”, Judith Jarvis Thomson and Mary Ann Warren. Judith Thomson summarizes her stance on abortion through an analogy, “…abortion justified in a wide range of cases. She creates a fantasized situation asking us to imagine that we are kidnapped for the purpose of preserving the life of unconscious violinist. We are connected to him so that he may share the use of our kidneys. If we disconnect the violinist before nine months elapse, the violinist will die. Thomson thinks that it is obvious that we have no obligation to share our kidneys with the violinist in such a case. Now she makes her case claiming that in an analogous situation the fetus is using his mother's body. Hence, she argues, in an analogous case, abortion can be justified in practically all cases…” (Hiller et al, 2). Hiller and Prahl continue to introduce Mary Warren, “…who arrives at her conclusions by analysis of the concept of personhood.” (Hiller et al, 2). Meaning, Warren bases the idea of having an abortion as acceptable or unacceptable on the status of personhood. To do this, a basis of personhood must be developed. Warren gives 5 points that must be met to obtain the status of personhood in which case an abortion is unacceptable: “consciousness of objects and events external and internal to the being, and in-particular the capacity to feel pain; reasoning -- the capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems; self-motivated activity; a capacity to communicate; the presence of self-concept and self-awareness.” 

These are two well developed stances that describe the mindset of the pro-choice side that clearly have faults but any argument coming from any human has a degree of fault. The question then becomes, “Are these faults great enough to disprove its own argument?”. I feel they are and the problem with this question is its highly subjective nature because many vary their opinions. Even so, I believe it is a popular opinion that the 5 points of personhood criteria given by Warren are a bit extreme. It is true that some fully grown adults do not meet these 5 points. Although, these adults may be mentally ill, they are still human adults but apparently according to Warren they are not. This is one conclusion I feel most everyone can agree on.

Let’s now continue to take an inside look at the mindset of the pro-choice parties opposers, the pro-life party. Once again, we will consider the article “Philosophers and the Issue of Abortion” written by Hiller and Prahl. They conclude as part of the pro-life party but they start by stating, “The sexual act is a conscious human activity with several purposes that developed during the evolution of the human psyche. Its biological function is preservation of the species, but it is also associated with several psychological conditions…” (Hiller et al, 3). One of the psychological conditions they give is as follows, “Commitment is necessary also for responsible sexual activity. Since sex, even with utilization of preventive measures, may predictably lead to unwanted pregnancy and development of a new life, responsible sex must take such a possibility into consideration. Therefore, every sexual act outside the institution of marriage or similar arrangement, guaranteeing lasting commitment, is morally unacceptable.” (Hiller et al, 3). Furthermore, they go on to state that the development of a fetus to a human baby is a continuous process from the moment of fertilization and that these “clump of cells are unlike any other. It is written, “the embryonic cells cannot be classified just as any "clump of cells" like liver cells or kidney cells. The role of these embryonic cells is absolutely different and they acquired a new quality and potential unlike any other cells in the body. They cannot be compared to the cancer cells either, because they are not abnormal cells and they do not destroy the host. Moreover, they arose by a conscious act with predictable consequences and our moral responsibility demands that we recognize their unique and specific potential.” (Hiller et al, 4-5). The entire pro-life party seems to internally agree that one of the reasons why abortion is so prevalent is due to the lack of sexual education. It is believed that if sexual and sexual moral education became a larger priority within schools it would instill more sexual responsibility into the younger generations resulting in not only less abortions but less sexual hardship.

It is clear the motives and the reasoning behind these motives are quite different from either party. Which is why it is no surprise this is such a highly debatable topic. The argument tends to go around and around. For example, in the article, “Killing, Letting Die, and the Morality of Abortion”, philosopher Anton Tupa refutes Judith Thomson and her argument regarding abortion. He says there are moral problems with the statements given by Thomson and that even though a fetus is a needy being that this needy being has a right to life. In addition, Peter Bisong, a health ethics professor from the University of Calabar in Nigeria, Africa says, “The arguments in support of abortion are faulty because they fail the truth and authenticity criterion. These arguments fail to capture all the factors… They emphasize one or two aspects and ignore the others.” (Bisong et al, 10). Likewise, the pro-choice party combats the pro-life’s arguments with similar logic. 

Rather than continue to go around and around in an endless debate. We shall recognize both parties from their own personal point of view and come to conclusion on why abortions are morally unacceptable. Consider the following situation. Unfortunately, America is not at an all-time low with its poverty levels. Nonetheless, it is not an excuse to have an abortion because you cannot afford to raise the baby or support it giving the mothers current life stage. This thought should have been conscious before deciding to take act in making a baby. Why is it morally correct for another human to suffer because of someone else’s irresponsible decision? In contrast, one might say that a developing fetus is not a “human” but who are we to decide when a developing baby has enough similar qualities to that of a human so that only then they have the right to life. Today’s culture is so heavy on equality, yet every child does not have an equal opportunity to life! It seems that humans tend to choose the outcome that best benefits the deciders situation rather than everyone involved. This is morally intolerable and if we truly want equality, let’s start with equality of life first.

As common logic dictates, if you can avoid a problem then do it! Upon reading Schroedle’s book, “Is the Fetus a Person?”, a common alternative resolution was realized and, the answer is not to abort or not to abort. Schroedle suggests, “Ovral and Levlen, which can be taken within seventy-two hours of unprotected intercourse to prevent pregnancy, already are available in the United States… These drugs provide us with an opportunity to back away from the precipice and put much of the abortion conflict behind us” (Schroedle, 190). Her resolution is quite simple yet would be so effective. If everyone who is sexually active had a basic education on how to safely use contraceptives the problem of abortion would absolutely decrease if not eventually become almost non-existent. This certainly is no perfect resolution as these drugs are not all that cheap and the chances of unplanned pregnancy is still possible, and the volume of irresponsible sex would still be maintained if not increased. Even so, it is the best “middle ground” resolution available.

In conclusion, the debate of abortion is no laughing matter. A lot of people are very defensive of their abortion beliefs and some get quite outraged when they are crossed with an opposing opinion. Instead of becoming so defensive we need to work together and either come to a concise one-sided conclusion or be willing to agree on a bilateral resolution. This essay has given both. As we looked at the rationales behind both pro-life and pro-choice parties we could see how the opposing arguments continue to build on one another. Not to add the pile of argument, I gave my personal moral reasoning behind why aborting is morally unacceptable. In short, being that it is irresponsible to take act in a sexual relationship when having a baby at the time is unwanted and the developing baby should not suffer for the parent’s irresponsibility. Lastly, a potential mutual resolution of proper education and contraceptive use was given and explained on how it would reduce the volume of unwanted pregnancies and possibly become near almost non-existent. The trouble of abortion will never be resolved if all we do is stand back and say we disagree with everyone but our self. This stubborn mindset will only dig a deep hole, we need to be willing to hear and understand others perspective from their point of view and then continue to reason with each other. All in all equality is an important matter but before I stress on whether or not immigration laws should be changed I will stress about the fact that currently the equal opportunity of life is not reality.
