I do not argue against legal abortion and I support those women who decide to abort due to serious health issues, rape, or incest. Every year between 4.7% ̶ 13.2% of women dies due to unsafe abortions1. However, if a therapist strongly insists on the termination of pregnancy only because a woman has a disability, I will argue that such a woman must always have a choice. Disabled women should be informed about the consequences of their delivery process and abortion. I will examine this subject through the lenses of morality and societal norms, laws and human rights, and consequentialism.
If removing a fetus from the woman’s womb results in death, abortion will contradict the community morals, which are against killing. Terminating a pregnancy because of a woman’s disability is a lack of respect for people with disorders. If abortion is made because of a baby’s disability, it will violate children’s right to live. Thus, abortion on the grounds of disability should be prohibited based on ethical beliefs, laws, and theories.
Sometimes, an abortion is necessary because it can save a mother’s life. For example, if a woman experiences complications during pregnancy that may lead to her death during the delivery process, a therapist will advise her to terminate the pregnancy. In addition, pregnancy can be terminated due to mental health risk2. For example, Columbia, Great Britain, and some Mexican states allow abortion when a woman’s mental health is under hazard2. Abortion can also prevent the birth of children with serious disabilities and eliminate labor resulting from rape or incest3. Moreover, the reason for abortion may be young age, when a girl is too young to give birth to a child. However, in some countries, for example, China, women made “medically unnecessary abortions” because of the government policy aimed at slowing population growth4. This reason for abortion cannot be justified ethically.
Abortions deprive potential human beings of the right to life. This act makes a fetus suffer and feel pain and increases infanticide in the community. From an ethical perspective, abortion is morally wrong, and if it is tolerated, the number of intentional killings will increase. Finally, abortions reduce population growth, negatively affecting future communities.
Associating abortion with a disability is a real dilemma since it may have several outcomes. Many people live with disabilities and disorders, and modern society protects their rights and freedoms. If women with disabilities are offered to terminate their pregnancy, it will be wrong because their rights will be violated. Moreover, if a woman is carrying a baby with a disability, the termination of such pregnancy will also be discrimination because all children have the right to live5. All people have this right, regardless of their physical and mental abilities. Securing abortion in women with disabilities will deprive them of this basic right and make them feel unwanted and separated from others.
People are social creatures, and moral principles regulate their lives and behaviors. Society prohibits murder, so killing an unborn baby should be considered immoral. Moreover, people should be loving and compassionate to each other, while abortion contradicts these qualities. International human rights standards protect women’s rights, which means that no one should dictate to them what to do6. Compelling a woman to terminate her pregnancy based on disability is illegal and immoral and should be prohibited by law.
Let assume that abortion due to disability is encouraged outside critical medical conditions. In such cases, some women may simulate disability to have their fetus removed from the uterus. If such issues are allowed, immoral behaviors in youth will increase, and more unnecessary abortions will be made. However, from the perspective of consequentialism, abortion should be allowed if only it could save a woman from death or life-threatening complications7. Consequentialists do not consider disability as a cause for abortion. Disorders may occur at an older age, and mothers may be unable to care for their children later. However, it does not mean that a child of a disabled person should be killed. Similarly, a fetus should not be aborted only because a woman has some disorders. On the contrary, consequentialists will think of all consequences related to pregnancy and decide whether abortion can be justified or not.
To conclude, abortion based on disability is immoral since it violates human reproductive rights, encourages death, and discriminates against disabled persons. Tolerating this practice will mean that people with disabilities are defective and less worthy, which is unethical. Moreover, accepting abortion based on disability will erode human virtue ethics and promote death and suffering. Every mother should have the right to decide whether she wants to preserve her pregnancy or not. Such decisions should be taken only after a full medical examination, and a woman should be fully informed about the consequences of her or her doctor’s choice.
Annotated Bibliography
Berer, M. Abortion Law and Policy Around the World: In Search of Decriminalization. Health and Human Rights Journal. 2017; 19(1):13-27.
In this article, the author discusses international abortion laws and policies. The article is interesting for my research since it reveals diverse perspectives on abortion and the rights ow women in different countries. At the same time, it discusses the ways to decriminalize abortions, but only if this act guarantees safety and security to pregnant women.
Clifton S. Disability and the Complexity of Choice in the Ethics of Abortion and Voluntary Euthanasia. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine. 2021; 46(4): 431-450. doi:10.1093/jmp/jhab008.
This article explains the social model of disability from the perspective of morality and virtue ethics. The author argues that this perspective serves as an encouragement for pregnant women with disabilities to make informed choices and live happy lives without fear of being discriminated against.
Heyer K. Prenatal Testing and Disability Rights: Challenging “Genetic Genocide.” Studies in Law, Politics and Society. 2018; 101-129. doi:10.1108/S1059-433720180000076006.
This article protects the rights of all people, even if they have some disabilities. The author argues that it is better to live with a disability than to be aborted. This article is useful for my research since it emphasizes the importance of every human being’s life, in spite of their origin, social status, or health condition.
Küng, SA, Darney, BG, Saavedra-Avendaño, B, Lohr, PA, Gil, L. Access to Abortion under the Health Exception: A Comparative Analysis in Three Countries. Reproductive Health. 2018; 15(107): 1-10. doi:10.1186/s12978-018-0548-x.
This article compares and contrasts access to abortion due to health exception in different countries. This article is important to my research because it emphasizes the importance of informing women about their rights.
Slote MA. Common-sense morality and consequentialism. London, UK: Routledge; 2020.
This article is useful for my research since it helps explain the act of abortion from an ethical perspective. According to the consequentialist theory, abortion should be performed only if it would help a woman to preserve her life and health.
Wang, V. China’s Vow to Reduce Abortions Sparks Public Worries. The New York Times.
In this newspaper article, the author discusses Chinese policies of birth control and population growth. One-child policy led to numerous abortions and reduced birth rate significanly. Today, the government is trying to increase the birth rate again, encouraging abortion reduction.
World Health Organization. Preventing unsafe abortion.
The WHO website provides current statistics of abortions, births, and deaths from unsafe abortions. I will use it for the lead of my opinion peace.
References
World Health Organization. Preventing unsafe abortion.
Küng, SA, Darney, BG, Saavedra-Avendaño, B, Lohr, PA, Gil, L. Access to Abortion under the Health Exception: A Comparative Analysis in Three Countries. Reproductive Health. 2018; 15(107): 1-10. doi:10.1186/s12978-018-0548-x.
Clifton S. Disability and the Complexity of Choice in the Ethics of Abortion and Voluntary Euthanasia. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine. 2021; 46(4): 431-450. doi:10.1093/jmp/jhab008.
Wang, V. China’s Vow to Reduce Abortions Sparks Public Worries. The New York Times. 2021.
Heyer K. Prenatal Testing and Disability Rights: Challenging “Genetic Genocide.” Studies in Law, Politics and Society. 2018; 101-129. doi:10.1108/S1059-433720180000076006.
Berer, M. Abortion Law and Policy Around the World: In Search of Decriminalization. Health and Human Rights Journal. 2017; 19(1):13-27.
Slote MA. Common-sense morality and consequentialism. London, UK: Routledge; 2020.
Footnotes
- World Health Organization. Preventing unsafe abortion. Web.
- Küng, SA, Darney, BG, Saavedra-Avendaño, B, Lohr, PA, Gil, L. Access to Abortion under the Health Exception: A Comparative Analysis in Three Countries. Reproductive Health. 2018; 15(107): 1-10. doi:10.1186/s12978-018-0548-x.
- Clifton S. Disability and the Complexity of Choice in the Ethics of Abortion and Voluntary Euthanasia. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine. 2021; 46(4): 431-450. doi:10.1093/jmp/jhab008.
- Wang, V. China’s Vow to Reduce Abortions Sparks Public Worries. The New York Times. 2021. Web.
- Heyer K. Prenatal Testing and Disability Rights: Challenging “Genetic Genocide.” Studies in Law, Politics and Society. 2018; 101-129. doi:10.1108/S1059-433720180000076006.
- Berer, M. Abortion Law and Policy Around the World: In Search of Decriminalization. Health and Human Rights Journal. 2017; 19(1):13-27. Web.
- Slote MA. Common-sense morality and consequentialism. London, UK: Routledge; 2020.
