Introduction
The abortion debate has persisted for long, with there being proponents and opponents. Philosophers have provided explanations on whether abortion is moral or otherwise. Judith Jarvis Thomson outlines a comprehensive articulation of abortion defense. Thomson hypothesis that Unborn Developing Humans (UDHs) are persons to enable a comprehensive argument and also deny them being actually persons. As such, there is a right to life for every person with fetuses included. In consideration of the Extreme View, abortion is non-permissible despite the objective being to save a mother's life. It is important to note that Thomson is not advocating these viewpoints. Using creative analogies, Thomson argues against the Extreme View claiming deviance with moral intuitions and considered stances. The analogies used include the Violinist, the Growing Baby, Smith's Coat, Henry Fonda, the Burglar, and People-Seeds. Therefore, Thomson can argue that there are cases when abortion is permissible, and other times it is not.
Just like Thomson, Little argues the moral permissibility of abortion in some cases. Little postulates that UDHs lacks the characterization of full personhood, and therefore their abortions are morally permissible due to their extreme intimacy and long-term implications. However, there are trivial reasons for abortion that should be castigated as indecent. The implication is that abortion procured in early terms is never unjust despite various cases being indecent. The support of the moral permissibility of abortion is that the UDHs would not survive without the mother. It is, therefore, important to consider the effects on the host mother. Little expounds on the implications and risks related to pregnancy. These can be categorized into medical, social, and personal implications. The consideration of these factors provides that the moral has no moral obligation to carry on with the pregnancy.
Noonan and Callahan's Arguments
In contrast to Little's and Thomson's arguments, Noonan postulates a paradigm that supports absolute importance in humanity, and that renders abortion morally wrong. First, he posits that the moral permissibility of abortion is when it saves the mother's life. In the explanation of abortions, Noonan examines the primary question on the determination of the humanity of a being. He postulates the essence of the genetic code that provides comparable moral status to zygotes, embryos, and UDHs similar to human beings. It is also critical in enabling the development of autonomy. Noonan, therefore, refutes the procurement of abortion, terming it cruel and selfish, unless its objective is saving the life of the woman. He examines and dismisses four attempts at determining humanity, which include viability, experience, externally-bestowed worth, and social visibility and interaction, which are considered to have great limitations.
Callahan argues a pro-life feministic perspective, and therefore against abortion. It means that abortion needs to be within the confines of maternal thinking, which entails the loving attribute of humans due to their existence in systems that are socially embedded. She examines different conceptualizations by feminist positions that support abortion and argues why they are inaccurate. These include the right to one's body, the importance of autonomy, the status of the UDH is at the mercy of the mother, and a woman's right to social equality. All these reasons underscore the permissibility of abortion and women's control over the decision. However, Callahan argues against these conceptualizations since they are contrary to the feminist care ethics, which supports nurturing and inclusive safeguard of the weak. It, therefore, means permissibility of abortion sustains the concept of sex masculinity, which is against the true feminist paradigm.
Singer & Wells's and Sander-Staudt's Arguments
The abortion debate has revolved around the autonomy of the potential mother and the value of Unborn Developing Humans (UDHs). Singer and Wells expound on various issues concerning ectogenesis, or artificial wombs. First, one day the necessity of the natural womb may inevitably be completely eliminated. Second, it can offer a potentially offer an option to surrogate mothering that is safe and cost-effective. Thirdly, it would potentially liberate women, and equalize sexes. Fourth, the author points out the possibility of the application in growing and harvesting organs but also rejects the alternative since it would undervalue infants' life. Lastly, ectogenesis can be utilized and therefore stop the objections to abortions. It would solve the issue of inability to keep the features alive in the initial stages which is usually considered a violation of human rights.
Sander-Staudt argues the concept of ectogenesis from different approaches namely liberal feminism, radical feminism, and cultural feminism. Author determines that all perspectives possess benefits and limitations. Some of the benefits include liberation from unwanted pregnancies, give women freedom to procreate, and balance the care-giving burdens between both genders. However, there are inherent limitations in these perspectives. For instance, women in prison or substance addicts to could be forced to undergo ectogenesis. The technology could significant increases the rights claim of UDHs, and therefore significantly reduce the right claims of mothers. Also, its popularization could render women pregnancy as an anomaly. Another downside is the potential social devaluation of mothering due to the cultural perceptions. The mechanization of the process might undermine the critical mother-child bond and the physical and emotional growth of the child. The author's argument presents both feasible benefits and limitations, but only endorses its application in therapeutic purposes only.
Mathison & Davis's, Rasanen's, and Overall's Arguments
There have been arguments that support the permissibility of abortion. Mathison and Davis examine three premises, and posit that pregnant women should not terminate their pregnancy despite the possibility of the UDH being placed in an artificial womb. The three arguments rejected by Mathison and Davis include the Biological Parents' Rights, the Genetic Privacy, and the Parent's property argument. In the first case, the authors explain that emotional burden that might be experienced with the knowledge there is an offspring living out there is no good reason to warrant termination of the UDH. In the second instance, the authors point that children only possess half one parent's genetic coding, and therefore do not compromise genetic privacy. It means this is not an enough reason to terminate a UDH. Lastly, since adults cannot be treated as a property, UDHs should not be treated as such too. It means that the Parent's property argument is disapproved.
The ectogenesis technology once it becomes viable will reconcile proponents and opponents of abortion since there is no right to the death of the fetus since the technology will allow gestation outside the womb. Contrary to the argument by Mathison and Davis, Rasanen claims that these positions are mistaken. Rasanen explains that since the genetic parents of the fetus have already denied it, its gestation with ectogenesis introduces the three violations. Therefore, he claims that the death of the fetus is justified in this case. He adds that the right to the death of the UDH is not a woman's right but the collective right of the genetic parents.
Overall write a response, which is a reversal of her previous argument, which was an endorsement of ectogenesis as a solution to the abortion debate. Concerns were that technology might undermine women's health and integrity and that it undermines the reason they sought for abortion, such as psychological harm. Overall assigns full moral status to the UDHs when they are outside the womb, and is dependent on the mother views while still in the womb.
Original Argument on Ectogenesis when fully Developed
The abortion debate revolves around a woman's freedom to decide what happens to their body and the freedom to insist on the termination of an entity that can survive outside the body. Currently, these two issues are interlinked, resulting to a conflict between the rights of the potential mother and those of the unborn developing humans. Reiterating the arguments from the class reading articles, ectogenesis will enable UDHs development outside the body of a woman and therefore greatly impact on the abortion debate. Thomson argued using the violinist analogy that despite the assignment of full moral status, the potential mother can withdraw her support, and therefore terminate the pregnancy. Underscoring the reasoning by Thomson, it can be argued that the permissibility of abortion is not granted if ectogenesis is availed with safety being guaranteed and being cost-effective. Mathison and Davis have tried to examine reasons in which right to the termination of a UDH can be exercised in the ectogenesis setting. Rasanen also provided an argument to discredit Mathison and Davis position pointing there is no right to death of UDH in these circumstances.
In all these arguments, the discussions revolve around whether or not to terminate a UDH in the context of the rights of the potential mother and developing fetus. In my argument, I want to introduce another perspective which is the rights of the father in the possibility ectogenesis become a default option. It is also important to look at whether the mother or the father can end the gestation process when already in the artificial womb. The question that begs answers is what will happen when artificial wombs become completely viable. It therefore important to examine if this development would make terminal abortions unethical or there will be permissibility of termination of the UDH can growth outside the body aided by the artificial womb.
First, I argue that the development of octogenesis would enable, and therefore permit termination of UDHs provided they can be sustained outside the body. It is however preconditioned on the perspective of the mother to do so. It is because the mother might not want to have a child living in the world thereby rendering gestation of UDH is artificial womb not permissible. The reasons for this would be as pointed out by Rasanen, include the Biological Parents' Rights, the Genetic Privacy, and the Parent's property reasons. The introduction of the father however complicates the permissibility of the abortion in light of ectogenesis technology. One might argue that fathers have not right to the UDH because more mental and physical burden is on the women. However, currently we have witnessed cases in which a child is born and the father is forced to be present against their will, and also pay expensive child support which complicates their lives physically, emotional and financially. I therefore argue that termination of the UDH should be collective decision by the mother and the father because both will be impacted by the birth of the child whether naturally or through ectogenesis.
