Performing Abortions Should be Illegal

Debate around abortion is as old as abortion itself. Various academics and politicians have said their piece on the moral and practical questions in very public disagreements. Popular opinion now rests with those who hold that abortion is a right stemming from a woman's right to privacy and a woman's right to decide what is done to her body. The following is a moral argument for why abortion should be illegal in any case not including imminent risk to the mother's life. This exemption is a special case beyond the scope of the argument. It is assumed that if a human being of any form is considered alive, Then it must be afforded the right to be so. Please note that this discussion pertains only to the individual performing the abortion, And not to the mother permitting it. The first claim is that the foetus should be considered alive until proof beyond reasonable doubt to the contrary is found, And that such proof does not yet exist. The principle of innocent until proven guilty is analogous where it applies to the death sentence, Since it prefers judicial error leading to hazardous freedom (life) over judicial error leading to death. The morality of innocent until proven guilty is long established and logically sound. In the case of abortion, The results of error are either painful freedom (life) or death. As in court, This principle lays the burden of proof with those who claim the foetus should be terminated, And suggests the foetus should be afforded the right to live by default until that burden of proof is met. To date, The measurements used to distinguish "living" from "dead" humans are heartbeat, Breath and brain activity. Modern medical practice requires confirmation of the latter before death is proclaimed, Even if the former two are absent. If a foetus meets this requirement for life, They must be considered as living. So the foetus is alive by week 5. Abortion after 5 weeks stops a foetus's heartbeat and brain activity, So is an action which stops life or causes death, Which is the definition for the verb "to kill". For abortion to be murder, Intent to kill the foetus must be shown. Since those performing abortion must by necessity have significant medical knowledge, They act knowingly. Since the sole purpose of an abortion is to destroy and dispose of the foetus, They act with knowing intent to kill the foetus. To successfully act with knowing intent to kill is to murder. Abortion is murder after 5 weeks according to modern science. Murder is rightly illegal. To forestall the normal hysterical response to the above conclusion, Please note this argument does not apply to mothers, Since they may not be aware their foetus is alive. On the opposite side of the balance to the assumed right to life of the medically living 5 week old foetus, Are its mother's rights to privacy and self-determination. These rights are forfeit if the mother consented to sex, Since she knowingly took action which might lead to their violation. In the case where she did not consent, These rights were violated by another. The question in this rare case is the relative necessities of the opposing rights, Which is easily answered in favour of life since it is a prerequisite for the opposing two. However, This answer may be irrelevant to the medic. He is not the person who violated the woman's right to privacy or self-determination. Nor does he violate these by refusing his services, Since his time, Effort and resources are his own according to his own right to self-determine, And since he does not add to her misfortune (the foetus is already present). Therefore the medic's only responsibilities are to the preservation of life and health for both the mother and the foetus. Since life is a prerequisite for health, It is reasonable to posit that it should be the medic's first priority. This eliminates the mother's health or an unhealthy foetus as a morally upstanding reason to terminate a living foetus. Therefore even if the mother's rights to privacy and self-determination outweigh the right to life of the foetus, Which they do not, Then the medic would still be morally wrong to knowingly act with the intent to kill the foetus. As such, It should (a moral judgement in this instance) still be illegal for the medic to perform the abortion. In conclusion, In there is no moral case for a medical professional to terminate a foetus unless either it may be proven the foetus is not alive, Or the mother's life is imminently at risk.