Muzeyen R, Ayichiluhm M, Manyazewal T. Legal Rights to Safe Abortion: Knowledge and Attitudes of Women in Northwest Ethiopia to the Current Ethiopian Abortion Law. Public health. 2017;148:129-36. Relatively few Americans view the morality of abortion in stark terms: Overall, only 7% of all adults in the United States say abortion is morally acceptable in all cases, and 13% say it morally bad in all cases. A third say abortion is morally reprehensible in most cases, while about a quarter (24%) say it is morally acceptable most of the time. About one in five people do not consider abortion a moral problem. If the draft law were passed in its current form, it would face an unprecedented status: the doctor would be empowered to act by decoupling his technical skills from his ethical responsibility. The moral unity of medical action is thus fundamentally changed. The result is a further weakening of the sincerity and integrity of professional ethics. Because some of that had already happened. Some obstetricians consider pregnant women to be “two patients” in the context of obstetrics.
For an outspoken lawyer, this is extremely inappropriate. One wonders if the fetal “patient” is a “person”? Probably because the idea of a patient who is not a person is weird. But legally, the pregnant woman, as I said earlier, is just a person. Who do doctors advise? Who makes treatment decisions? The woman. In general, midwives and obstetricians refer to them as “babies” rather than fetuses, probably because that is how the women in their care see their fetuses. But is the fetus really a second patient? If this were the case, one would expect doctors to have to open a separate file for the fetus, which (as far as I know) is not common in maternity wards. Maybe “two” patients turn an obstetrician into a “super doctor”, which is why the idea caught on! The security of not being persecuted is enhanced by the government`s pardon of doctors who have been convicted by a court for performing abortions under conditions not permitted by law. We all remember how the Ministros Committee pardoned two doctors whose conduct had been deemed seriously illegal by the Supreme Court. And we also remember how the then vice-president of the government declared to the media his intention to systematically pardon any doctor convicted on such grounds. In addition, those who argue that abortion should be legal in all cases without exception are extremely likely (76%) to say that only the statement about the decision that belongs exclusively to the pregnant woman reflects their views extremely, very or fairly well, while an almost identical proportion (73%) of those who say that abortion should be illegal in all cases without exception, Say that only the statement about human life since conception seems at least a little good to them. If an abortion is safer than carrying a pregnancy to term, then all pregnant women who wanted an abortion before 24 weeks should be eligible under reason 1 above. So maybe the law isn`t so bad after all.
In summary, one view on the relevance of the above issues to abortion is that the rejection of what is prescribed by authority or law on moral, personal, or religious grounds is a common feature of various attitudes of social dissent, such as civil disobedience, conscientious objection, or evasive insubordination. What distinguishes conscientious objection is its peaceful and non-violent nature; its ethical and non-political basis; and, although it is not always their intention, their intention to testify against conduct that, although socially permissible, is considered by the objector to be inadmissible or positively perverse. In his approval, Chief Justice Roberts stated that while he agreed with the majority`s conclusion to uphold the Mississippi law, he preferred a narrower approach based on the principle of judicial deference. Instead of “rejecting a constitutional right that we have not only previously recognized, but also expressly affirmed the application of the doctrine of stare decisis,” the court could have simply dismissed viability as the point where the state`s interest in protecting potential life outweighed the woman`s right to terminate her pregnancy and upheld Mississippi`s right to prohibit abortions at 15 weeks. The majority rejected this approach, in part because it would “only delay the day when we would be forced to face the issue we are making. The turbulence caused by Roe and Casey would lengthen. It is far better – for this court and the country – to face the real problem without further delay. This happened in Ireland in 2012.
Savita Halappanavar, who is 17 weeks pregnant, was hospitalized after a miscarriage was deemed inevitable. When she did not miscarry after the water break, she discussed an abortion with the attending physician. This was rejected because Irish law at the time prohibited abortion if a heartbeat was still detectable. While waiting for the fetal heart to stop, Savita developed sepsis and died. The case was instrumental in legalising abortion in Ireland. Although most health professionals accepted that some women had the right to abortion, many felt that it was difficult to perform abortions. Standing in front of a woman and administering the drug or using surgical equipment to remove the fetus created dilemmas about her religious beliefs, perceptions of life, and local societal norms. They wondered whether abortion was ethically correct or not.
This dilemma was often expressed in terms of “something unpleasant” and feelings of “shame” and “misconduct.” Another example of state control is the Republic of Ireland, where the constitution gives the “unborn child” a right to life equivalent to that of the “mother”. Even rape is not recognised as a legal basis for abortion, although this can be the subject of a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. In two dramatic cases where children were sexually assaulted, Cases X and C, 21, 22, the Irish courts considered whether these victims could travel freely to England to undergo a legal abortion. If children become pregnant and family courts have to review their welfare, Irish courts will only allow travel abroad for abortions if the children can prove their lives are in danger. This is surprising considering that in 1992 the Irish people voted to give women the freedom to travel. So there are glaring examples on both sides of the Atlantic of problems that arise when ethical absolutes about fetal life are translated into law. Perhaps it is not so much a new ethic of abortion that is needed, but a broader ethic. The two main positions on the morality of abortion can be described as the “pro-life” position and the “pro-choice” position. The basic pro-life position is that induced abortions are morally unacceptable (morally reprehensible, morally prohibited). The basic pro-choice position is that induced abortions are morally permissible (morally permissible, not morally reprehensible). Variations of these basic pro-life and pro-choice positions are possible and will be discussed below. The question, in turn, is how to judge when life begins, in an ethical sense.
Legally, the fetus, as I said, is not a “person” and does not become a legal entity until after birth. But attempts to establish “viability” as a criterion for abortion are hampered by the problem that viability depends in part on where the fetus is at any given time; If it is located in an area with excellent facilities for caring for very premature babies, it can be considered “viable” at an earlier gestational age than if it were elsewhere. In any case, it is arbitrary. The pro-choice stance on abortion is often referred to as a liberal viewpoint. Mary Anne Warren delivers a classic statement from the liberal point of view. Warren does not dispute the conservative`s claim that the fetus is biologically human, but she denies that biological humanity is necessary or sufficient for personality and the right to life. She argues that it is arbitrary to base the moral position on belonging to the species, claiming that it is wrong to kill people, not humans. In fact, Warren believes the conservative made a logical mistake: confusing biological humans with individuals. People are beings with certain psychological characteristics, including sensitivity, awareness, the ability to think rationally, and the ability to use language.
There may be non-human persons (e.g., certain animals, aliens), and there may be biological humans who are not individuals, including fetuses in early pregnancy, who do not have person-forming characteristics.