Abortion Legalization Debate: Pros, Cons, and Ethical Stakes

Introduction: Framing the Abortion Debate

The abortion debate often revolves around the appropriateness of terminating a pregnancy before the normal process of childbirth. Some rule out abortion as inappropriate in any possible scenario; others posit that it is only permissible when a mother's life is at risk; still others argue that, depending on cultural context, there are a range of circumstances in which it may be morally acceptable. Unlike actions such as jaywalking — which are considered illegal but not immoral — or wrongs such as adultery, which are considered immoral yet not necessarily illegal, Boonin (2003) states that when it comes to abortion, the moral obligation is more fundamental. The National Institutes of Health (NIH, 2015) defines abortion as the deliberate removal of a fetus from the womb of a female through their agency or at their request, which often results in the death of the fetus.

Although there are numerous differing opinions on the legality of abortion, millions of women still undergo the procedure every day. According to Berek (2007), approximately 46 million women worldwide have abortions annually; of these, half are illegal and considered unsafe by the World Health Organization (WHO). Moreover, in places where abortion is illegal, complications are a common feature because women often go to extreme lengths to have it done, with 78,000 women dying worldwide each year in the process. Where it is legal, the procedure is reasonably safe, though often condemned by society. By deciding whether abortion is legal or illegal, societies play a significant role in the health and wellbeing of mothers. The primary aim of this paper is to analyze the dilemma of whether abortion ought to be legalized. It examines the pros and cons of abortion, the legal and ethical implications, and the major and minor parties affected.

The Core Dilemma

Berek (2007) states that although societies cannot put a stop to abortion, they have a significant role to play in determining whether it will be dangerous or safe — an outcome that largely depends on its legal status. Abortion is a particularly sensitive topic because it implicates the nature of human rights, personal autonomy, and the exercise of state authority over personal choices. Much of the debate about legalizing abortion involves determining whose opinion matters most in the decision. Whereas the mother carries the child and faces all potential health risks involved, some argue that the father also plays a significant role in conception and should therefore have a say in the fate of the pregnancy (LaFollette, 2003). Society plays a role in defining what is considered right and wrong, while government is concerned with infant mortality rates and the laws governing abortion within its jurisdiction.

The American abortion law, for example, stems from a decision made by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade (Naden, 2008). The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment grants a mother the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy before childbirth, in order to exercise her freedom over personal and family matters. Religious leaders, by contrast, believe that human beings have no authority over the life of another, since God alone is the giver of life. You can read more about the constitutional basis for this ruling at Oyez's summary of Roe v. Wade.

The dilemma that arises, therefore, is whether abortion should be made legal — allowing a mother to exercise her freedom of personal choice in family matters, which is viewed as unfair to the father and ethically wrong by religious institutions and much of society — or whether it should remain illegal, in which case mothers will inevitably seek unsafe ways to terminate pregnancies, resulting in the deaths of fetuses and mothers alike, and in violations of laws set by the government.

Policy Options for Abortion Legality

There are three options that should be considered when deciding whether abortion should be legal or illegal. The first option is to declare abortion illegal regardless of the circumstances. This option would compel mothers to use contraceptives before engaging in sexual activity, since they would not be permitted to terminate a pregnancy. The consequence of this approach, however, is that mothers may occasionally face health emergencies that endanger their lives if a pregnancy cannot be terminated. LaFollette (2003) notes that in such scenarios, giving birth is often more dangerous to the health of the mother than terminating the pregnancy. This option would therefore pressure doctors to ignore the law in order to save a mother's life.

The second option involves granting parents the right to decide the fate of the fetus, since they are responsible for its conception. Abortion would be legal, and parents who wish to terminate a pregnancy could have the procedure performed safely in a hospital. This option also carries negative consequences. Naden (2008) states that fathers may sometimes be reduced to mere sperm donors when the parents' opinions on how to handle a pregnancy differ. Individuals could also become irresponsible, abandoning contraception because they know they can always terminate a pregnancy — a stance that conflicts with religious teachings, as it amounts to playing God. Moreover, parents may abuse this privilege.

The third option is conditional legalization: abortion would be permitted only under specific circumstances, such as when the mother's life is at risk, in cases of rape or incest, or when a severe fetal abnormality is detected. This middle-ground approach aims to balance the competing interests of personal autonomy, public health, and ethical concerns. It acknowledges the legitimate medical cases for abortion while placing limits on its use as a matter of convenience. For a broader overview of how different countries approach these distinctions, see the Wikipedia article on abortion law.