When
does a foetus become morally equivalent to a human being?
In
the second trimester of my first pregnancy, I miscarried my twins. Around 14
weeks after one foetus died, I went into preterm labour, which was probably
brought on by the first fetus's loss and infection. At 1812 weeks, I gave birth
to the second twin, who on the ultrasound looked absolutely fine but was simply
too young to live.
These
were some of my saddest times; I mourned for years
Even
ten years later, I still frequently think about this incident. But in recent
days, the US Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, has also served
as a continual topic of discussion. I consider how the dilation and curettage,
a typical early abortion procedure I underwent to remove the placenta, is now
prohibited in almost all situations in six states when performed to end a
pregnancy containing a live foetus. I wonder if doctors wouldn't have refused
to help me if the infection had gotten worse if my body hadn't halted the
pregnancy.
But
the majority of the time, I consider the implications of the Supreme Court's
decision on abortion in the second trimester on June 24. As some commentators
have noted, there will undoubtedly be an increase in second-trimester abortions
because early abortion is now prohibited or severely limited in most of the
nation.
In
my opinion, it is morally repugnant to prevent someone from getting an abortion
in their own state, regardless of their motivation. But from the perspective of
moral concern for foetuses, it also matters that more abortions might be
delayed into the second trimester when pregnant women face more access
challenges. Many individuals believe that losing a pregnancy later
in the pregnancy is more heartbreaking than losing it at an earlier stage. For
later vs earlier abortions, the same holds true.
As
a moral philosopher, I am aware that gradualism is a philosophical theory that
can aid in making sense of this notion. According to gradualism, the process of
developing moral standing is gradual and ongoing throughout pregnancy. This
implies that later-born foetuses have greater status than earlier-born ones,
and therefore later abortions are also ethically more serious.
Limitations
and postponed abortions
Abortions
frequently take place fairly early in the United States: 79.3 per cent before 9
weeks and 92.7 per cent before 14 weeks. Compare that to 1974, the first year
following the historic Roe v. Wade ruling, when 21% of abortions occurred
during the second trimester.
Some
second-trimester abortions are carried out as a result of foetal defects that
are identified later; in other situations, the expectant mother may desire or
need to terminate the pregnancy due to changes in her health or financial
situation.
However,
there are other causes of second-trimester abortions that are related to
policy. Abortion care can be delayed by mandatory waiting periods and
restrictions on public funding. According to research, when governments impose
waiting periods of merely 24 hours, the number of second-trimester abortions
among people who use in-state providers rises. The second-trimester abortion
rate rose from 22% to 43% in 2015 as a result of Tennessee's new waiting time.
With
many pregnant women having to travel hundreds of miles to the nearest provider
as a result of the recent Supreme Court decision, delays are likely to become
the norm. Clinics in blue states are bracing for a surge in out-of-state
patients after seeing a spike in Texas patients flying to other states after
the state passed a legislation outlawing abortion. The later gestational age at
which those impacted by Texas' ban get abortions has also been seen by
providers.
Therefore,
even if women in the South and the Midwest finally get access to abortions in
other states, they might be compelled to carry the pregnancy for several more
weeks or months. Second-trimester terminations carry greater health risks than
early terminations, are more expensive, and are less frequently performed by
clinicians who have received the necessary training. Additionally,
second-trimester abortion can be morally and emotionally challenging for both
physicians and patients. In actuality, 91% of women who had an abortion in the
second trimester said they would have preferred to do it earlier.
What
is a foetus' moral standing?
The
moral standing of a foetus influences the morality of abortion in part. Full
moral status, sometimes known as "personhood," refers to having the
same moral standing and rights as every other human being.
The
most well-known theories about the worth of prenatal life search for a
"bright line," or point in development at which a foetus attains
complete moral status. While some pro-choice advocates look to birth or the
first breath, the majority of abortion opponents tend to think that conception
is the dividing line.
Viability,
the estimated time at which a baby can survive outside of the womb
(approximately 23 weeks), functioned as a legal boundary during the Roe era. In
the past, "quickening," which occurs when a pregnant woman
experiences foetal movement at about four months, was believed to be the moral
deciding factor.
Many
philosophers look to cognitive abilities, such as consciousness, reasoning, or
self-awareness, which do not develop until the third trimester or even after
delivery, as an alternative to these clear-cut categories. These viewpoints all
agree that foetuses before the bright-line are morally insignificant to
non-existent.
All
of this is rejected by gradualism. It maintains that there is no such clear-cut
answer. Instead, a fetus's physical, cognitive, and relational development coincides
with how its moral position develops. A zygote has almost no more status than
sperm and an egg immediately after conception. However, the moral value of the
embryo gradually and steadily grows over time.
As
a result, whereas an embryo at 6 or 8 weeks may have a very low status, a
foetus at 32 or 35 weeks has about the same moral position as a newborn.
Therefore, from a gradualist perspective, the first abortion is typically
ethically unimportant, whereas the third-trimester abortion is considered as
severe conduct that requires the strongest of moral justifications.
Meanwhile,
as gradualist philosopher Margaret Little puts it, mid-pregnancy foetuses are
morally "in between." The theory holds that although foetuses have
important moral value at this stage of pregnancy, they have not yet attained
complete moral status. As a result, it is morally justifiable to end their
lives.
The
advantage of gradualism over bright-line views is that it explains why people
strongly favour early abortion but are ambivalent about terminations in the
second and third trimesters.
The
viewpoint in the post-Roe era also emphasises the moral tragedy that would
result if state abortion restrictions that target early abortion increased the
rate of second-trimester terminations. After all, from a gradualist
perspective, second-trimester abortion is much more ethically troubling than
early abortion.