Does abortion violate the unborn child’s right to life, or does it respect the mother’s right to choose?

Abortion is discussed from the perspective that it violates the unborn child’s right to life. I argue that we should recognize the fetus as a person, prioritize the right to life over the mother’s right to choose, and prevent the inevitable through contraceptive education.

 

In October 2016, South Korea’s Ministry of Health and Welfare announced an amendment to its administrative rules to suspend licenses for up to 12 months for doctors who perform illegal abortions. However, the amendment was temporarily postponed due to strong opposition from the medical community, including the Korean Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Amidst the government and medical community’s confrontation over the anti-abortion law, the general public is also divided over the current law that prohibits abortion. Those who support the right to life and ethics of the unborn child are in favor of banning abortion, while those who consider maternal choice and the realities of our society argue that the current anti-abortion laws are unjust.
In fact, the abortion debate began in earnest in 2010, when a pro-life physicians’ organization accused doctors of performing illegal abortions. In 2012, the Constitutional Court ruled in favor of the constitutionality of the law in a constitutional challenge, but as of 2016, the debate is still ongoing. While the arguments on both sides of the pro- and anti-abortion debate are sharp, the answer may be clear at its core. The right to life is more important than any other value and cannot be violated by others. Therefore, anti-abortion laws are valid and abortion should be banned.

Premise 1: It is wrong to take the life of a living, innocent human being.
Premise 2: The fetus is a living, innocent person.
Conclusion: It is wrong to take the life of a fetus.

First, a fetus is a living human being and therefore has a right to life. Most people would agree with premise 1 without much objection, so if we agree that a fetus is a living person, then abortion should naturally be prohibited by the above three-step argument. But is a fetus really a living person? This question is similar to the question of when do we start recognizing fetuses as people? Pro-abortionists argue that abortion is not murder because a fetus is a person from the moment of birth, and the laws of pro-choice countries use 24 weeks of gestation as the threshold for allowing abortion.
However, when it comes to the question of whether a fetus is really a person before birth, or whether a fetus should be viewed as a lifeless clump of cells before 24 weeks of gestation, pro-abortionists cannot say with certainty. From an existentialist perspective, the fetus in the mother’s womb just before birth and the baby after birth are the same entity. The fetus in the womb is not endowed with life at birth, so it would be unreasonable to assume that it acquires life and personhood at birth. Therefore, if we view a baby at birth as a living person, then it would be wrong not to view the fetus as a living being simply because it is in its mother’s womb.
So, in countries that allow abortion and in the exceptional abortion provisions of Korea’s Maternal and Child Health Act, is it right not to consider a fetus a living person before 24 weeks of gestation? Before answering this question, let’s go back to the question we posed at the beginning: when do we begin to consider a fetus a person? While there is no societal consensus on the definition of when life begins, Princeton University’s Peter Singer has suggested that a human embryo is essentially the same individual after the eight-cell stage. Peter Singer and other philosophers agree on the philosophical idea that an embryo is essentially the same as a baby after the 8-cell stage, when no new individuals are born, such as twins. Based on these philosophical ideas, I also believe that a 5-6 week old embryo that has been implanted at the point of abortion, well past the 8th cell stage, is essentially the same individual as the fetus at birth.
If we recognize the status of a person as a distinct living entity at birth, then it would be right to call an embryo a life at implantation past the eight-cell stage, which is at least essentially the same entity. Of course, there are objections to calling a person a living entity once it has an established identity. However, I think it makes more sense to define life along the continuum of life than to define life at birth or at some embryologically significant time around 24 weeks. At 24 weeks, the argument that yesterday’s fetus is suddenly a living being today is less compelling.
Nor does a mother’s right to choose rationalize abortion. Maternal right to choose is the opposite of fetal right to life in the abortion debate: the idea that it is the mother who decides whether or not to continue a pregnancy. In modern society, personal freedom is recognized as a priority right, meaning that we cannot invade a person’s privacy or regulate their sexuality to prevent them from having an abortion. However, the biggest prerequisite for this freedom is that it does not infringe on the rights of others. A mother’s right to self-choice is necessary to guarantee personal freedom, but it cannot be protected if it violates the right to life of the unborn child.
Just as it is not right to take the life of another human being for our own freedom, it is not right to take the life of an unborn child for the sake of the mother’s freedom. Pro-abortionists may argue that because the fetus is inside the mother’s womb, it does not have a fully independent status and is a dependent part of the mother. However, the fetus is clearly alive and, in most cases, very likely to grow into an independent entity. Just as parents have a lot of power over their minor children, but they cannot take their lives, it is not right that a mother should have the right to decide the life of her unborn child just because she is a mother. Therefore, the unborn child’s right to life should be guaranteed, and it should take precedence over the mother’s right to choose.
Finally, unavoidable circumstances do not justify abortion. Current anti-abortion laws basically prohibit abortion, but partially allow it in exceptional circumstances. However, pro-choice advocates argue that the current law allows for too narrow a range of abortions that don’t take into account the realities of life, and that it doesn’t protect against unavoidable pregnancies. However, an analysis of the actual number of abortions performed shows that truly unavoidable pregnancies and exceptions are in the minority. According to the Ministry of Health and Welfare’s 2010 abortion statistics, 160,000 abortions were performed in 2010, but only 5% of those abortions were due to unavoidable circumstances, such as rape or sexual assault, or fatal fetal or maternal health abnormalities. The remaining 95% of abortions are not considered to be unavoidable under the current law.
Outside of the limited circumstances outlined by the law, some may argue that pregnancy of a minor, pregnancy of an unmarried mother, family planning, and economic factors are unavoidable. However, these situations are not unavoidable, but part of the inevitable consequences of a person’s choices. Contraception is a good way to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Preventing underage pregnancies and unwanted pregnancies among the younger generation will require a radical approach to contraceptive education and sex education, rather than allowing abortion, which takes the life of a fetus.
Furthermore, in a modern society that values individual freedom, it is an individual’s freedom to choose not to use contraception for casual sex or sexual pleasure. But with freedom comes responsibility. In real-life abortion cases, most people knew how to use contraception, but were too lazy or complacent to use it and became pregnant. Being pro-life and responsible with your freedom, not easy access to abortion, is the surest way to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
The issue of allowing abortion for genetic abnormalities caused by early prenatal diagnostics may be more controversial than the above case. It actually falls under an exception to the Maternal and Child Health Act, which pits the value of quality of life against the life of the fetus. However, just as the lives of people with disabilities or genetic disorders are equally valuable as those of able-bodied people, it is not right to favor unconditional abortion simply based on the presence or absence of a disability. While there are exceptions to this rule and further discussion is warranted, the vast majority of abortion situations we encounter are not unavoidable, but rather a responsibility to freedom.
As such, abortion must be banned to protect the unborn child’s right to life. However, those in favor of abortion still argue for its necessity based on practical concerns. As they argue, given that the largest number of abortions occur in the 20s and 30s, strong enforcement of current anti-abortion laws could result in a large number of unwed mothers in the short term. However, the reality is that not all single mothers choose abortion, and surveys show that contrary to their claims, most single mothers who have had children do not regret their decision. This shows that it is not the situation that matters in the end, but the difference in perspective and the will to overcome it with the preciousness of life. Therefore, these practical issues should be approached based on improving people’s awareness and the social system, and the ban on abortion should ensure that the precious lives in our society are not abandoned and grow into healthy members of society.