Hogan 1

Harrison Hayes Hogan

English 1101

Professor Justin Barbaree

November 11, 2022

Abortion: Is it the Homicide or “Elimination” of a Fetus?

Most argumentative papers concerned with so-called “abortion rights” are intended to

address the political battlefield: the superficial, legal fight between “My Body, My Choice” or

government intervention. However, more time should be spent addressing the moral qualms

associated with the right to get an abortion in the first place. This moral argument balances on

whether a fetus, at the moment of conception, is considered a person or not. The progressive

approach to this contends that a young fetus is usually unviable and unproductive to society at its

current state, making it less of a person. The fetus, however, may gradually “gain” personhood

through its stages of development. This “graduation” is used to justify a mother’s right to decide

whether a fetus, based on its perceived usefulness, is a person or not. On the other hand, the

conservative approach – the approach which resonates with me – holds that though a young fetus

may be unviable, it still has the potential to be a valuable member of society. Additionally, since

the patterns of logic used to disprove the fetus’s personhood are non sequitur (do not follow),

there is no reason why a fetus should not be worthy of person status.

The moral controversy which follows fuels contention: if the conservative view of a

fetus’s person status is accurate, then the masses of mothers and doctors who practice abortions

are guilty of homicide; if not, then the conservatives’ urge for government authority to ban or
 Hogan 2

restrict abortion interferes with a mother’s right to privacy. This conflict is not easily addressed

in either case, but as a nation concerned with the right to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of

Happiness,” we Americans must understand abortion’s position in cutting off those same rights

to our young.

Let us understand first of all what the “gradualism” approach of the progressives entails.

Amanda Roth, an associate professor at the State University of New York College, wrote an

article in which she adopts the idea that there is no clear “bright line” separating the time

between when a fetus achieves “personhood” and when a fetus is merely an unviable human. She

uses the term “gradualism” to describe how “the development of moral status parallels the

physical, cognitive and relational development of a fetus. Just after conception, a zygote has little

more status than a sperm and egg. But as the embryo develops, its moral value increases slowly

and steadily” (Roth). This ideology deteriorates any effort that one may make to label abortion as

an absolutely immoral act because it “smooths the corners” of any definitive status regarding the

fetus’s personage.

This concept of gradualism then naturally opens the door for many compromises to be

made on the political stage; the “Heartbeat” bill that was passed in Georgia, for example,

appeared to be a complete conservative victory because it illegalized abortions. In reality,

however, it only illegalized abortions that happened after six weeks of gestation. The gradualism

approach strengthens the pro-choice argument by offering diplomatic compromises to a “hot-

button” issue. If we step back, we may ask, “Why are the progressives so eager to make

abortions always accessible to some degree? What are the benefits to such a stance?” According

to some people’s observations, abortions appear to benefit society in many ways, particularly

when it comes to moderating crime rates. Henry Morgentaler, author of Abortion and
 Hogan 3

Contraception and founder of the Humanist Association of Canada, wrote an article promoting

the benefits of unbarred abortion by linking the freedom of getting an abortion to the reduction of

crime rates. He proposes, “But probably the biggest benefit of legalized abortion and the one

with the greatest impact is that the number of unwanted children is decreasing. Children who are

abused, brutalized, or neglected are more likely to become neurotic, psychotic, or criminal

elements of society,” (Morgentaler). After he makes this claim, he correlates the legalization of

abortion to statistics which show that in the 90’s, when the Roe generation would have come of

age, the crime rates in large, populous areas such as New York and Quebec decreased

substantially (Morgentaler). By the progressivist’s philosophy, paired with Morgentaler’s

research, it does appear that the increase in abortions, especially those which are said to protect

unwanted children from an abusive home, are possibly benefiting the number of crime rates in

larger cities. And since abortions would eliminate the children who would possibly grow up in a

dysfunctional home, the other children, who would be nurtured in a caring home, would have a

higher probability of becoming model citizens, capable of “pursuing happiness.” The supposed

benefits of any abortion, however, can only be morally justified if the fetuses to be eliminated are

indeed seen under the scope of progressive “gradualism.”

What then is the conservative’s argument of why a fetus is a person? The argument,

surprisingly, is less concerned about proving the fetus’s personhood and more concerned with

disproving that a fetus is not a person. There are many idiosyncratic trains of logic which form

the progressivist’s stance on abortion that are actually non sequitur, i.e., there are some illogical

arguments that are the basis for the progressive argument. Laura Peredo, writer of the pro-life

web article “Why abortion is wrong: The pro-life case”, delves a little bit deeper into what she

believes to be some of the progressivist’s ill-concluded points. Peredo reasons, “Some will say
 Hogan 4

that yes, it’s human (the fetus). And yes, it’s alive, but it’s not a person. This is intellectually

dishonest. We know from pure biology that from the very first moment of fertilization, the new

being is neither the father nor the mother. She has her very own DNA, from the first moment of

her creation” (Peredo). She offers a fairly effective counterargument to the opposing side’s

assumptions of a fetus’s personhood, supported by clear logic and scientific facts concerning the

fetus’s unique biological differences from its parents. Peredo also references other logical

fallacies, explaining:

If one argues it (the fetus) is human, but not a person, then there has to be a moment in

pregnancy or at birth when a being that is not a person becomes a person. Would that be

when the preborn has the ability to feel pain and respond to stimuli? If that is the

characteristic of being a person, born people who are in comas or cannot feel pain would

not be people. Would this moment be the first breath upon being born? If that is the

characteristic of being a person, then being on a ventilator would disqualify individuals

from being people (Peredo).

These rebuttals to the progressivist’s arguments are key to the conservative’s belief that abortion

is wrong, since the evidence to support abortion, based on paradoxical conclusions, is non

sequitur.

What is the significance to the conservative in refuting these arguments? Why do I, the

conservative, concern myself with the personhood of a fetus? If you think about it, this is only

one of multiple issues prevalent in society, and there are many other issues that have more

immediate, dire consequences, right? Actually, for traditionalists, the importance of the abortion

issue, with reference to a fetus’s personhood status, is a principal matter of morality: if human

life is considered sacred, then determining whether or not a fetus – being a form of human life –
 Hogan 5

is a person becomes an issue of utmost importance. Michael Paulsen, the author of a persuasive

article called “The One and Only Pro-Life Argument”, provides context to this argument by

linking abortion back to what has been universally acknowledged to be one of the most morally

corrupt crimes: homicide. He presents the following rationale:

Here’s the key question: Would any of this justify a freedom to kill a born, living child?

A six-month old? A newborn? Would any of these things—poverty, economic or social

stress, lost or delayed opportunities, single-motherhood, male abandonment, sexual

autonomy, conscientious but unsuccessful use of contraception, the child’s disability,

rape or incest, the emotional or psychological distress of parenthood—justify what we

would otherwise recognize as the simple murder of a living newborn, infant, or

toddler? …Hopefully, you are repulsed by this notion. Of course, none of these factors,

even if true, would justify child killing! (Paulsen).

He brings to light the immorality of abortion by comparing the perceived moral “eliminating” of

unwanted fetuses for “x” reasons to the perceived appalling murder of toddlers for the same “x”

reasons, unveiling the critical moral dilemma. To the conservative, this apparent contradiction in

the progressivist’s perspective is concerning, considering that our country grants to all its citizens

the right to life and condemns the theft of that sacred right.

The pro-life stance, however, is not just focused on the moral problems dealing with

infanticide. It also exists as a preventative measure, to protect women from the deep emotional

and psychological trauma that often results from an abortion, and recognizes the lost potential

benefits of getting rid of unwanted fetuses. First of all, women who have gone through abortions

typically experience tremendous emotional trauma after the procedure. Although many abortion

doctors attempt to ease the suffering of the mother during the abortion procedure, this easing
 Hogan 6

does little to mitigate the psychological damage that can mar the mother's future. The pro-life

stance sympathizes with this mother and her pregnancy situation; it is hard to know what to do or

how to find help in such situations. However, the conservative believes that, if the infant is

allowed to live, both the mother’s mental state and the baby’s human rights would be respected.

The defense for a baby’s life also has societal significance. Humanity has produced Robert

Boyle, Johann Sebastian Bach, Jonas Salk, Albert Einstein, Mother Teresa, and Martin Luther

King, Jr. – an relatively miniscule list of people who have significantly benefited society and

shaped modern science, arts, civil rights, medicine, and general philanthropy. Now, suppose one

of these people had been aborted for as insignificant a reason as the mother simply not wanting a

baby to “cramp her lifestyle.” The consequences of only ONE of these people not existing would

have greatly impacted, or in some cases destroyed, thousands or even millions of lives. Suppose

now that a fetus who was aborted shortly after the 1973 Roe v. Wade court ruling could have

created the ultimate cure for cancer (or some other widespread, terminal illness). We could now

be living in a world where cancer is cured, and several thousands of lives would be saved

annually if he had lived. When abortion is not an option, that immeasurable human potential is

protected. To some, the pro-life argument appears judgmental and unsympathetic to those

affected by unwanted pregnancies, regardless of the circumstances. However, when you look

into the results and intentions behind the conservative’s stance, it becomes clear that this stance

sympathizes with the individual and foresees the unlimited potential of those who are lost to

abortion.

After analyzing the opposing arguments, two prominent topics expose themselves:

morality in society and individual rights. The progressives observe that when abortion flourishes,

morality in society improves and individual rights are maintained. The conservatives believe that
 Hogan 7

when abortion is allowed to run rampant, morality in society dissolves and individual rights are

abused. There is an obvious stand-still; however, if we put this in the perspective of the original

American rights guaranteed to all people, we can follow a line of logic to a sensible conclusion.

With reference to previously cited quotes, the progressives appear to be largely concerned with

the rights of the adult, American populous. However, does it not follow that if the most

fundamental right, the right to life, is not upheld, then the adult, American population will

forever be in danger of losing its other rights? When the right to life is viewed as purely just an

option, not to be enforced or cherished, what respect will exist for the other rights that other

Americans freely enjoy? We the people must respect and extend this most sacred right to ALL,

including the unborn, if there is to be any regard for “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of

Happiness.”
 Hogan 8

Works Cited:

Roth, Amanda. "When Does the Fetus Acquire a Moral Status of a Human Being? The

Philosophy of 'Gradualism' Can Provide Answers." Gale Opposing Viewpoints Online

Collection, Gale, 2022. Gale In Context: Opposing

Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/NHVCKW070560337/OVIC?

u=dahl83393&sid=bookmark-OVIC&xid=4c2e40ae. Accessed 13 Nov. 2022. Originally

published as "When does the fetus acquire a moral status of a human being? The

philosophy of 'gradualism' can provide answers," The Conversation, 30 June 2022.

Morgentaler, Henry. "Abortion Is a Moral Choice." The Ethics of Abortion, edited by Christine

Watkins, Greenhaven Press, 2001. At Issue. Gale In Context: Opposing

Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010012205/OVIC?u=dahl83393&sid=bookmark-

OVIC&xid=889522b4. Accessed 13 Nov. 2022.

Peredo, Laura. “Why Abortion Is Wrong: The Pro-Life Case.” Live Action News, 7 Nov. 2016,

https://www.liveaction.org/news/why-abortion-is-wrong-the-pro-life-case/. Accessed 13

Nov. 2022.
 Hogan 9

Paulsen, Michael Stokes, et al. “The One and Only Pro-Life Argument.” Public Discourse, 25

Apr. 2022, https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2022/04/81966/. Accessed 13 Nov.

2022.