A Moral Defense of Abortion

Abstract

The debate over abortion is one of the most serious ethical dilemmas the modern world faces. Over the last few decades, we have seen the world moving toward legalising and providing more and more access to abortion. But at the same time, we have seen the opposition to abortion from the religious and conservative groups leading to escalations of debates. Anti abortionist position is more commonly known as “pro-life" because they claim that they advocate for the unborn person's right to life. They claim that because the fetus is a human being, it has a right to life as any other human being; therefore, abortions should be illegal. Most pro-abortionists have countered that argument by arguing that the fetus does not have the right to life because it is not a yet human being. However, this has been a risky pronouncement for pro-abortionists to make. The development of the fetus from the moment of conception represents a continuum where there is no clear demarcation of human being or non-human being. In her famous essay "A Defense of Abortion," Judith Jarvis Thompson has argued in favour of abortion without denying the fact that the fetus is a human being. In this study, I examined her argument in detail to show that her position is ultimately contradictory. By examining where her argument went wrong, I tried to remedy this error by presenting my own theory as to what it means to act morally. From this, I showed that abortion could be morally justified without denying that the fetus is a human being.