At the crux of the abortion issue is the question – is abortion murder? A commonly expressed opinion on the pro-choice side is the belief that the human embryo or fetus (again the noun used depending on the gestation of the pregnancy) is neither alive nor human, therefore it acceptable to kill a fetus just as it is acceptable to kill a cow or pig. To anyone with even the most basic education in biology, this opinion will sound highly ignorant. Nonetheless, a more compelling and sound argument is that put forth by Peter Singer and that is the concept of a person distinct from a human. To qualify as a person, according to Singer, one must meet certain characteristics such as rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness. Using utilitarian principles Singer, argues that since the fetus fails to meet these characteristics the interests of the mother seeking an abortion outweigh those of the fetus.
However, the question arises – when does a human become a person? Having read many online commentators opinion on personhood, many seem to believe that the fetus meets the criteria to be considered a person somewhere around the magical point of 24 weeks gestation. Why this point? I would assume that many are aware that the threshold of viability is currently considered 24 weeks gestation, maybe others have such respect for the authority of law that they believe the cut off established by many developed nations at 24 weeks must be correct (trust me I’ve heard the law is the dictator of morality argument too many times). It was not long ago that the threshold of viability was considered 28 weeks now it is 24 weeks and in the future it will be even lower.The changes in this viability threshold are due to developments in neonatal intensive care – for example better incubators, high frequency oscillator ventilator, total parental nutrition, even utilisation of caffeine. Yet, using the threshold of viability as the determinants of who is a person is problematic. Technological advancements do not provide the fetus with the characteristics of rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness, no rather they provide an artificial environment that allows the premature infant to develop. Therefore the use of the the threshold of viability is a poor determinant of personhood.
Singer doesn’t fall for this trap, rather he is brutally rational, taking his personhood argument to its logical conclusion and that is the unpalatable view that infanticide is morally permissible for the same reasons that abortion is. If we accept Singers views on abortion then we cannot disagree with his views on infanticide. Neonates are reflexive creatures, this is evident from the primitive reflexes they display such as the reflexive smile, the Moro and stepping reflexes even the cry is a simple brain-stem reflex. Considering this, the neonate fails to meet any of Singers criteria for personhood those being rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness. In fact newborns would only begin to show evidence of cortical overriding of these reflexes between 4-6 months of age and even then its is difficult to conclude that infants of this age possess the characteristics of rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness. So it would appear that an anti-abortion and anti-infanticide position is snookered.
Singers position is logical and on the surface appears sound. However, there are a number of reasons to object to Singers position. The first is the creation of a concept for the sole goal of justifying killing a human. In order for creation of such a concept to appear to be ethically acceptable it must be for a greater good. I would agree that in the case of rape, threat to the mother’s health or fatal fetal anomaly, abortion could be argued to be for the greater good, or at least a morally permissible choice. However, the vast number of abortion are not performed for this reason. Perhaps society benefits from elimination of unwanted children or it is beneficial as a means of population control. These are topics for another post.
Following on from my criticism of Singers position based on the creation of a concept to deny rights, is the question – who has the authority to set such criteria? Those who support access to abortion as a human right would be horrified by the idea that we would establish a concept that denies certain humans rights based on certain physical characteristics. Why should young humans have their right to not be killed revoked simply because they temporarily lack certain arbitrarily determined characteristics. Time is continuous, always moving forward, as is the development, growth and ageing of living organisms. To decide that at one point a certain creature can be killed is to ignore this continuous process, and instead behave in a manner that the human fetus has a future no more complex than the simple organism it is at that particular point of development.
Moving on from, this is the question of why is it wrong to kill? Well clearly these reasons are culturally defined and no doubt has origins from psychological and social evolution. It is most definitely not universally held. But what is the philosophical reasons for considering killing unethical? I have come across many who support Singers position and argue that the moral wrongness of killing arises from thwarting a conscious beings desire to continue living. Again, I find this position problematic. When a patient is unconscious and needs treatment should we leave the patient to die simply because they have no conscious desire to continue living? Of course not. The wrongness of killing has little to do with pain and suffering of those killed, rather that is separate immoral act. A swift painless killing is still wrong. The reason I believe it is wrong to kill is the fact that killing denies a living creature its natural future. And abortion certainly robs a fetus of its future.
seamyjamesy 