Abortion and the right to Privacy

  

Lissette  and Lisette

 L. Walkup

Ethics

April 3, 2006

In 1970, Jane Roe, an unmarried pregnant woman, wished to undergo an abortion in the state of Texas. However, in Texas, the statutes made it a crime to “procure an abortion” except with respect to “an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the sole purpose of saving the life of the mother (Van Camp, 2001). Jane went to the courts to prove that the statute was unconstitutional. The district court ruled that the Texas criminal abortion statues were “unconstitutional on their face” and that Jane had the right to choose whether to have children, which was protected by the Ninth through the Fourteenth Amendments. However, the district courts did deny other aspects of the case, so Jane Roe was forced to take the case to the United States Supreme Court. On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment (Van Camp, 2001). Justice Blackman pointed out that the right to privacy applied to a woman’s decision on whether or not to terminate her pregnancy but that her right was not completely absolute. Her right may be limited by the state’s interests in safeguarding the woman’s health, in maintaining proper medical standards, and in protecting human life. He also stated that the fetus is not included with the definition of a person as used in the Fourteenth Amendment. Blackman later went on with the fact that a state cannot interfere with the decision of a woman or physician to have an abortion prior to the end of the first trimester. After the first trimester and until the fetus is viable the state may regulate the abortion procedure or prohibit the abortion unless it is necessary for the mother’s health.

The Roe vs. Wade case has given all women their constitutional right to an abortion, but the issue of abortion is hardly settled. Some say an abortion is right if it is necessary to preserve the life of the mother, prevents the life of a handicapped child or ends the pregnancy resulting from a criminal act of sexual intercourse. Others say that having an abortion, even to save the life of a mother, is immoral. In order to evaluate such claims though, it is helpful to know some biological background and types of abortion.

Biological Background

Most of the controversy surrounding the abortion issue involves when the fetus is actually considered to be a human being. Many people believe that any mother who waits too long to have an abortion, is “murdering” a human being. To evaluate this theory, a general idea on the developmental stages beginning with conception, when a female germ cell (ovum) is penetrated by the male germ cell (spermatozoon), should be considered. When these two cells unite it is referred to as a zygote. The zygote journeys down the fallopian tube which carries ova from the ovary to the uterus. This passage usually takes two or three days. The zygote begins a process of cellular division that increases in size. The zygote ends it journey in the fallopian tube where it continues to develop. At this point, the end of a pregnancy must be performed surgically because the tube is so narrow. When the zygote reaches the uterus, it develops into what is called a blastocyst. By the end of the second week the blastocyst implants itself into the uterine wall. Until the end of the eighth week the unborn “person” is called an embryo. When it reaches four or five weeks the embryo develops human features. During the eighth week, brain activity is detectable. From that point on and until birth, the embryo is called a fetus. At any point during these stages, the termination of the unborn entity is referred to as an abortion.

Abortion

Abortion is simply the termination of a pregnancy before birth, resulting in the death of the fetus. Some abortions occur naturally because a fetus does not develop normally or because the mother has an injury or disorder that prevents her from carrying the pregnancy to term, known as a miscarriage. Other abortions are intentional, which occur for many reasons such as preventing a risk to a woman’s health, or because the fetus is likely to have severe physical or mental health problems. Modern medical techniques have made induced abortions simpler and less dangerous. Induced abortions are performed using drugs or surgery, many of which take little time to be performed.

Abortion Methods

Drug-based abortion methods typically require that a woman take two types of drugs after the mother misses her period. Its effect is to block the use of an essential hormonal nutrient by the newly-implanted baby, who then dies, and drops off.  RU-486, however, is not a contraceptive because it does not prevent fertilization or implantation.  It is used only after the mother has missed her period and the baby is at least two to three weeks old, with a beating heart (the fetal heart begins to beat when the woman is four days late for her period).  It is no longer effective after six or eight weeks (Colliton, M.D, 2004).

Numerous surgical methods are used to induce abortions, but the number one method used is called the Suction Aspiration method. The abortionist first paralyzes the cervix (womb opening).  He then inserts a hollow plastic tube with a knife-like tip into the uterus.  The tube is connected to a powerful pump with a suction force 29 times more powerful than a home vacuum cleaner.  The procedure tears the baby's body into pieces and the hose frequently jerks as pieces of the baby become lodged.  The placenta is then cut from the inner wall of the uterus and the scraps are sucked out into a bottle. (Colliton, M.D, 2004).

Uncommon today and used during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy is the Dilatation & Curettage (D&C).  This is similar to the suction procedure except that the abortionist inserts a curette, a loop-shaped steel knife up into the uterus.  He then cuts the placenta and baby into pieces and scrapes them out into a basin (Colliton, M.D, 2004). Also used for advanced pregnancies is the D & X (Partial Birth). The cervix is dilated to allow passage of a ring forceps.  A foot or lower leg is located and pulled into the vagina. The baby is extracted until the head is just inside the cervix. The baby's legs hang outside the woman's body.  With the baby face-down, scissors are plunged into the baby's head at the nape of the neck and spread open to enlarge the wound. A suction tip is inserted and the baby's brain is removed. The skull collapses and the baby is delivered.  Sharp and suction curettage is continued until the walls of the womb are clean (Colliton, M.D, 2004).

Abortion Laws

Abortions have been practiced around the world since ancient times as a method of birth control. Although many religions forbade or restricted the practice, abortion was not considered illegal in most countries until the 19th century. In 1803, as part of the Lord Ellenborough’s law, the English parliament passed a law making any use of abortion punishable by exile, whipping or imprisonment (Costa, 1991). In 1821, Connecticut passed a law prohibiting “dangerous poisons” for the use of abortion. Later in 1830, Connecticut revised the law and made abortion completely illegal, if caught a person was punished for up to ten years in prison (Costa, 1991).   After many battles, the legalization of abortion was beginning to become once again legal (not yet for any purpose) starting in 1966 when Mississippi passed a law permitting abortion in cases of rape. Other states increased the use of abortion when it involved cases that threatened a woman’s health, the fetus was abnormal, or if the pregnancy was the result of incest. It wasn’t until the Roe v. Wade case that abortion was effectively legalized for any reason before the 24th week of pregnancy. However, each individual state is still able to enact laws restricting abortion, except in cases when abortion is necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman. Many states also require parental notice or consent laws for minors, some have waiting periods, and some have reporting requirements for all abortions.

Thirty states have proved successful in banning the partial birth method which includes Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Wisconsin. However, on June 1, Judge Phyllis Hamilton of the U.S. District in California struck down on this 2003 federal law. Her ruling prohibited the government from enforcing partial birth abortion against doctors and clinics affiliated with Planned Parenthood in California (Facts.com, 2004). Federal judges in New York City and Nebraska have also banned this proposed law.

A provision signed by President Bush that became a law in 2005 prohibits local, state, or federal authorities from requiring any institution or healthcare professional to provide abortion services or even make abortion-related referrals (Roman, 2005). In Mississippi, a law that also took effect in 2005 allows all facilities and even healthcare providers to decline any medical service they object to on moral or religious grounds.

In recent news, South Dakota lawmakers passed one of the strongest bans on abortions since the Supreme Court effectively legalized abortion nationwide in 1973. “Passed by a 23-12 vote in the state senate and approved in the house, the bill prohibits abortions even in cases of rape or incest, the only exception being if the mother's life is endangered” (Caplan, 2006). "I believe we should protect human life,”. "If this bill accomplishes that, I am inclined to sign it" states Republican Governor Mike Rounds (Caplan, 2006). Kate Looby, state director for Planned Parenthood of South Dakota, who runs the state's only abortion clinic, says her organization will seek a different ruling if the bill becomes law. Other states such as Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee have introduced bills this year to ban almost every abortion. The Supreme Court should soon reveal which way it's leaning, as it will affect almost all abortion laws to come.

Viewpoints

A diversity of views exists within the United States and Canada concerning abortion access.  Many pro-life and pro-choice groups have been organized with opposing goals.  Surprisingly, they agree on a few very important points.  They both want to see the abortion rate decline.  In those cases where they feel that an abortion is acceptable, they are both concerned that it presents a minimal health risk to the woman.  Once human “personhood” is attained by the embryo or fetus, both pro-life and pro-choice supporters are concerned that his/her life be preserved, except in specific circumstances.

Unfortunately, the two sides cannot agree on when personhood is attained.  Most pro-life groups believe it happens at conception and are generally opposed to all elective abortions.  Pro-choice groups believe that it happens later in gestation or at birth, and are thus generally supportive of a woman’s access to affordable elective abortions.

In our culture, which is so influenced by the media, it is not difficult to hear all the views, whether it is pro-life or pro-choice, on abortion and whether it is the right thing to do or not. They are found in newspapers, magazines, radio shows, television shows and now online. When it does become difficult is when we have to decide on which opinion to agree with. Various groups have been formed for and against aborting, there is even a group called ‘Search for Common Ground” which educates people on making the right decisions on abortion while offering views from both sides. In order to fully understand our own thoughts on abortion, listening completely to both positions is extremely useful.

People who are Pro- Life (against abortion) feel that abortions are wrong for any reason, even for the health of the mother. First of all, they say that abortion is murder, which again goes back to when a fetus is considered a human being. Pro-lifers state that a fetus is an “unborn baby” which is a human being. Killing a human being is wrong so abortion is wrong. Pro-choicers say that a fetus is not a human being that it is only a mass of cells that does not have organs or a human brain, which are needed to be considered a human being (Morgentaler, 2001).  Another Pro-life argument is that women who undergo abortion have serious psychological effects after. The APA (American Psychological Association) states that although not many women constitute a psychological hazard after undergoing abortion, there are some who do, usually the women that do not receive any kind of support for their decisions or have difficulty in making a decision to have an abortion (Costa, 1991). Furthermore, Pro-Lifers say that women must be responsible for their own sexual activity. With so many contraceptives on the market, any woman who does not take advantage of them should be responsible for her own carelessness.  In response to this statement Pro-Choicers say that no form of birth control is 100 percent effective and that women should still have a choice if they want to have an abortion.

People who are Pro-Choice (for abortion) feel that, no matter what, a woman should always have the right to have an abortion if she wants to. They feel that a woman has rights over her own body and that an unwanted pregnancy is an invasion of a woman’s body. If a woman is prevented from having an abortion by allowing society to take control of her body, she may feel imprisoned and invaded (Regas, 1991). Pro-Lifers say that no right is an absolute right. “The freedom to choose abortion deprives a woman of the experience of childbirth and mothering and in the process snuffs out the lives of their innocent babies” (Gallagher, 1991). Many people also argue that it is wrong to deny abortions to women with unwanted pregnancies, because having an unwanted child can have a detrimental impact on the mother and child. “The earth is so overcrowded that it is a greater sin not to abort unwanted children than it is to allow them to enter a world in which they will likely be disadvantaged and abused” (Welton, 1991).

There is an inconsistency in the pro-life movement from the viewpoint of the pro-choicers.  There is little mention of IUDs (Intra-uterine devices).  The IUD interferes with the implantation of fertilized ovum in the uterine wall.  This means that IUDs terminate the development of a fertilized ovum after conception and cause its expulsion from the body (Robinson, 2004).  To a person who believes that human personhood begins at the instant of conception, there is no ethical difference between using an IUD, having a first trimester abortion or having a partial birth abortion. 

There is also a serious inconsistency among the pro-choice movement, as viewed by pro-lifers.  There is little agreement among pro-choicers as to how late in gestation elective abortions should be permitted.  For example, some argue that elective abortions should be restricted after fetal viability and some place the time limit at about twenty six weeks when the fetal brain’s higher functions are initiated (Robinson, 2004).

Pro-life religious groups are found in most religions and are generally opposed to all abortions, from conception to birth, for any reason.  Some would allow abortion only to save the woman’s life; some would permit abortion to if the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest.  There are approximately 1,000 denominations in North America who take a pro-life stand and oppose abortion access.  The largest of these are: The Roman Catholic Church, The Southern Baptist Convention, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Eastern Orthodox, and The Lutheran Church. 

An exception among conservative Christian groups is the Seventh Day Adventist Church.  They are pro-choice to the extent that they believe that the final decision whether to terminate the pregnancy or not should be made by the woman after appropriate consultation.  However, they do not condone abortions for reasons of birth control, gender selection, or convenience.  They recognized that abortion can be a legitimate option for some women who face circumstances that present serious moral or medical dilemmas, such as significant threats to the pregnant woman’s life, jeopardy to her health, severe congenital defects diagnosed in the fetus, and pregnancy resulting from rape or incest (Robinson, 2004).

From a Utilitarian’s perspective, the morally right decision would be the one that produced the greatest amount of pleasure or happiness.  From the pregnant woman and her family’s perspective, if the child was not planned and would yield great hardships on the family, the morally right decision would be to have an abortion.  What would count would be the sum total of happiness for the woman and her family, not the child.  On the other hand, if the entire community where the woman lived were opposed to it, the morally right decision would be for the woman to keep the child and not consider only her opinion.  This would yield the sum total of happiness for the community. Concerns with this theory include, should pleasure be the standard of morality?  Can the end justify the means?

From an ethical egoist viewpoint, the pregnant woman would pursue actions only based on her own benefit.  If she felt that having the child would make her health or her life a hardship, she would have an abortion.  If she felt that having an abortion would cause her greater hardship morally than adapting to having a child, she would continue with the pregnancy.  She would not consider the benefit or hardship for anyone else, only herself.  This sounds like the proper way to handle this moral decision, although this could be how she got into the predicament in the first place.

A teleologist would view an abortion by weighing the consequences heavily.  This would depend on what different values she holds on certain aspects.  If having the child would make her happy, she would have the child and if it would cause more harm than good she would not.  The rightness or wrongness of the act would justify itself by calculating the consequences.  This is similar to a utilitarian, though.  Can the ends justify the means?  Can the human mind calculate the pain or pleasure that would result from an action? 

A deontologist says no.  They look at the act itself not the consequences.  The rightness or wrongness of an act does not justify itself by calculating its consequences.  Deontology is about following rules one has been taught.  These rules could come from parents or God.  A deontologist is concerned with the act itself and is less concerned with the effects or consequences of the act.  The woman would not have an abortion, even if it would benefit her to, if she felt the act in itself would be wrong.  Again, this depends on the woman’s beliefs and what rules she has been taught.  If she felt the act in itself was morally okay, she would continue with the abortion.

The Supreme Court set the stage for a major fall showdown over abortion when the justices agreed to decide whether Congress can ban a late-term abortion procedure nationwide.  It's not new territory for the court, which in 2000 split 5-4 when it struck down a similar state ban because it lacked an exception for women whose lives were in danger.  Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who voted with the majority in that case, has been replaced by Justice Samuel Alito, whose views on abortion are expected to be more restrictive (Henderson, 2006).

The case could be the first in which Alito, with other court conservatives, including new Chief Justice John Roberts, helps chart a more restrictive trajectory for the court's handling of abortion laws.  The case doesn't directly address Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that struck down anti-abortion laws, but the outcome could indicate whether the court might allow limits that would affect the ease with which abortions can be obtained.

The procedure at issue is one of the more contentious aspects of the abortion debate.  The two sides disagree even on what to call it.  Abortion rights advocates at partial-birth or even late-term abortion, saying the procedure, which doctors call an intact dilation and extraction, is almost always restricted to instances in which it's medically necessary (Henderson, 2006).

Abortion opponents prefer the more charged terms to highlight what they call the procedure's gruesome nature. It involves the killing of a fetus that's fully formed and, in some instances, partially delivered.  "Almost certainly on the table here is an awful lot more than the federal partial-birth ban," said David Garrow, a constitutional law expert (Henderson, 2006).

Not only might the court eliminate the need for a health exception, but it also could reconsider case law that blocks the enforcement of abortion laws when any part of them is unconstitutional.  Most other laws are nullified only if it's shown that they're wholly unconstitutional.

Partisans on both sides of the issue made it clear that they view the case as pivotal -- and the court's new makeup as potentially decisive.  "The Supreme Court's decision to hear this case is a dangerous act of hostility aimed squarely at women's health and safety," said Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (Henderson, 2006).

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the anti-abortion American Center for Law and Justice, welcomed the court's decision.  "This is an incredibly important decision that puts the issue of partial-birth abortion front and center," he said (Henderson, 2006).

My Thoughts

Jane Roe has clearly made a huge impact on the rights of woman to have abortions, some loathe her for it and others love her for it. She has truly given women rights that were suppressed for many years. Today, abortion is still one of the most controversial issues for many reasons and may never be resolved. Many states still do not allow women to undergo abortions under some circumstances and limit the methods. So many justifiable viewpoints from credible people are offered that it’s too difficult to agree with anyone. It really comes down to the person that is faced with the decision to have an abortion. No belief is the right belief. It seems though, that one of the most important controversies is when a fetus is considered to be human being. If this were resolved people may not have such a problem with others undergoing an abortion before the fetus is considered to be a human. After all, it is about killing a human being. My thoughts on this whole issue changed so many times while reading and researching the topic of abortion but I am glad that I did. Not many people are educated on abortion or the methods of abortion; if they were people would probably form better decisions on abortion. I myself did not know much about abortion, which resulted in my own beliefs changing. For one, I always thought as Pro-Choicers do, that a woman should have the right to have an abortion whenever she wanted to. Although, I am still pro-choice I now feel this way for different reasons. If a woman is raped, I still believe that an abortion is the right thing to do if the woman chooses so. This woman will not deliver to term happily, as she may for a child that she intended to have, nor will this child be loved but instead loathed. Even if she were to give the child up for adoption she will still be unsatisfied with herself for giving up a baby that was hers, but does not want to keep. Now, if a woman constantly has abortions because she simply does not want to have children, she should be stopped. There is a clear difference between not wanting to have a child for your own reasons and being forced to have one because of rape. Another matter that I oppose is having an abortion after the first trimester. If a woman has waited this long to have an abortion then she should not be able to have one any longer. I’m glad that many states now hold that to be illegal. I’ve seen too many cases where abortions go wrong and babies are still born with major defects such as being blind and not being able to comprehend anything. These innocent children should not have to go through life in this manner.  I now see why Abortion is such a hard issue to even try to resolve and it may never be. Again, it all falls upon the person making the decision and whether it is ethical to that individual. The best way to make an educated opinion on abortion is to evaluate each aspect and consider each viewpoint without being biased toward the idea and most of all understand the reasons why these women are having abortions, for some have no choice. Frederica Mathewes-Green, An author of Real Choices: Listening to Women Looking for Alternatives to Abortion, went around the country to ask women why they had abortions.  What she heard most frequently was “I had the abortion because someone I love told me to” (Mathewes-Green, 2001).  It was either the father of the child or the woman’s parents who pressured her to have the abortion.  These women had abortions because they felt abandoned, isolated and afraid (Mathewes-Green, 2001). So what has Abortion really done? It has become the ultimate freedom for many worldwide while becoming the ultimate pain for others.