Abortion: A Loophole in Medical Ethics
Author: Lâl Karasatı
If there is one topic that occupies a modern day politician’s agenda, it’s abortion. For most of us, whether we are pro-life or pro-choice might be an easy, instant choice. But what does science have to say about this? Does this ancient practice match with our understanding of human rights?
Abortion or induced abortion, is the practice of removing the embryo or fetus during a pregnancy. The term “induced” indicates an external involvement of humans in the termination of pregnancy. It is different than a miscarriage where the embryo naturally dies. It is one of the safest techniques in medicine, but only when performed properly.
Abortion has been a subject of debate since the early days of civilization. Over the course of the history of medicine, laws and jurisdictions have shifted from one end of the spectrum to the other. It all brought us to present day, where each country (or even states within a country) have completely opposing abortion laws.
In the core of all abortion debates lies the “beginning of human personhood”. When does life start? At what point of the pregnancy does the embryo become “human”? Science may have an answer, but it only makes this debate more complicated. When the two gametes fuse and create a single-celled zygote, it is considered a human. Just like unicellular organisms such as bacteria, the moment of fertilization creates an alive being. A 2018 survey conducted at University of Chicago showed that 95% of biologists believe that life starts at conception according to the developmental biology principles. Solely based on pure science, it seems like abortion could be a criminal offense. However, it is certainly not a one-sided phenomenon.
Medicine revolves around one crucial concept: patient consent. Anyone is free to make decisions for their own body and their wellbeing. In the case of a pregnancy, the woman is the “host” for the embryo. Up until week 29, the embryo cannot survive outside of the womb, therefore it is fully dependent on the woman. Following this idea, pro-choice advocates believe the decision should belong to the woman. It is suggested that the embryo is not a self-sufficient, conscious being and therefore, human rights do not apply to it the same way.
On the other hand, pro-life advocates base their opinions on science, religion and basic human rights. This interesting combination results in the belief that the same human rights apply to the embryo in the womb. In the eyes of pro-lifers, abortion is murder at any and all stages of pregnancy.
In the past decade, abortion debates have been occupying a significant place in politics. Right-wing parties have been associated with pro-life propaganda, while legalization and decriminalization of abortion have been on top of left-wing political agendas.
This controversial practice shows us that science is sometimes not enough to settle a debate. As humans, we are critical thinkers and we stand by different values than what science tells us. So, pro-life or pro-choice? As long as human rights and politics are in the mix we may never get a collective answer to this question.