A Life or Choice Decision

As the US enters a new era of MAGA conservatism, the political tension in the country is higher than ever. Platforms such as TikTok, X, Reddit, and The Spark have been flooded with people voicing their own thoughts on contemporary issues: namely, reproduction rights and accessible abortions. These topics have been hotly contested, from the debate stage to the Thanksgiving dinner table.

A 17-year-old male student watches this unfold from Singapore. I tend to take more conservative positions on certain political issues, however, abortion is one of the topics I have conflicting feelings over. And yes, as a male, I have the privilege of never experiencing an abortion or being in a position where one is necessary. Still, I ponder between the two perspectives. On one hand, I understand the right to freedom and body autonomy—yet, on the other hand, does that give the legal right to abort a fetus, which could be considered a living being? If so, would this be a “choice” that belongs to the woman? My goal isn’t to argue what a woman should or should not do with her own body, or to convince you to become pro-life; rather, it is to delve a bit deeper into a conservative perspective on the issue and attempt to provide a philosophical argument on the element of choice in abortion and the nature of life.

One of the most influential essays on the topic of abortion is modern-day philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson’s A Defense of Abortion, where she utilizes thought experiments to contemplate the freedoms and choices of women. Her most famous experiment, dubbed the Violinist Argument, argues as such:

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own… in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

Here, Thomson argues against the right to use another person’s body and emphasizes the bodily autonomy of humans in cases of forced pregnancies. A few flaws in the analogy must be addressed: firstly, the famous violinist is a stranger. At the same time, a fetus is directly related to the individual, meaning there is more of an emotional bond between the latter rather than the former. Secondly, there is a difference between deliberately killing someone through abortion and letting someone die of external causes. This is the fine line between murder and passive euthanasia. Nevertheless, I would agree with the overall premise of the argument, especially considering that the thought experiment is an analogy for forced pregnancies in cases of rape, incest, or threats to the woman’s life via kidnapping. I would concede that it fairly justifies abortion in such special cases, as it wasn’t a choice made by the woman—no woman would ever decide to get raped.

In her essay, Thomson also brings up another, lesser-known analogy called the People-Seed Argument. In this analogy, she compares voluntary intercourse to seedlings flying through a window with a mesh designed to keep them out, but still has the risk of getting past the mesh and taking root inside the house—an analogy for protected sex and the rare pregnancies resulting from it. The simple fact that the woman knowingly risked such an occurrence when opening her window, Thomson argues, doesn’t necessarily deny her the ability to rid her house of the intruder. This analogy is less justifiable, and I would suggest the contrary. The act of voluntarily opening the window was a choice made freely by the individual and thus must deal with the consequences of their choices, even with the mesh screen. In other words, the risk of pregnancy is like the fine text in a Terms & Conditions: we skim over it and quickly check the “I agree” box, oblivious to the regret we could face in the near future. 

On the other side of the aisle is Robert P. George, an influential legal scholar and philosopher. In his appropriately titled Embryo: A Defense of Human Life, George questions whether abortion is considered murder and if fetuses are living beings. From a philosophical standpoint, the answer isn’t so simple. He points out that there are many arguments out there attempting to explain the opposite and point to stages such as sentience, brainwaves, the capacity to experience pain, heartbeat, and more. However, drawing an “arbitrary line for personhood,” as he calls it, is unjustifiable as there are always exceptions that disprove it. For example, if one must have a heartbeat to be considered alive, people undergoing cardiac arrest would be considered dead, which is not the case. If one must be sentient to be considered alive, people in a coma would also be categorized as not being alive, which is evidently false. I would agree with George’s claims, which show there is only one way to define a human being: at the moment of conception. Biologically speaking, fetuses meet the biological criteria for life: they grow, reproduce cells, respond to their environment, and have organized structures—a single cell with unique DNA starts dividing and developing into a complex organism we call humans. It is a human being with potential, not a potential human being.

Unfortunately, this brings forward a moral grey area for abortion. If a fetus is indeed a living being and terminating it would be considered murder, should it be allowed? Would legalizing abortion be legalizing murder? Or, is preventing abortions a violation of one’s freedoms and choices? Ultimately, I think the answer is this: we do have certain freedoms in our society. The government doesn’t restrict voluntary intercourse, on the condition that one should bear the consequences and take responsibility for one’s actions. It’s not an argument on choices or rights per se, but more of the realization that we don’t have the right to do everything we want. One can’t go around shooting people on the grounds that America is a “free” country. Yes, someone foolish enough can make the choice of doing so, but the consequences will — rightfully — be dire and punishing. The United States isn’t a free-for-all anarchy, and as the saying of democracy goes, “the right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.” Citizens need to understand this nuance before going on pointless TikTok meltdowns or blatantly ignorant 3 a.m. Reddit arguments, while policymakers must keep in mind both sides of this philosophical debate as they decide what is best for the United States and its people.

My philosophy is that people should be held accountable for both the good and bad choices in their lives. I personally believe it is morally wrong for one to simply dispose of a life and refuse to face the consequences of his or her actions. And yes, this applies to the father of the fetus as well; there is a certain level of responsibility required from both parties when a pregnancy occurs, such as devoting their time and financial resources to the future child. It is morally reprehensible for the man to ignore and leave the woman after impregnating her, unaware of the physical and mental consequences the woman has to go through. And if, Heaven forbid, the man impregnated the woman nonconsensually, the punishments must be severe and unforgiving. 

So, rather than generalizing that the right to an abortion is absolute, it should be considered as something that must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Abortion in exceptional cases of rape or when the woman’s life is threatened? Absolutely. Abortion for any reason whatsoever? I would be hesitant. Because, at the end of the day, we’re talking about the termination of another human life, and shouldn’t everyone have the choice of living?

References

George, R. P., & Tollefsen, C. (2008). Embryo : a defense of human life. Doubleday.

Thomson, J. J. (1971). A Defense of Abortion. Colorado.edu. https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160