Journal of Health Ethics

Volume 12 Issue 2 Article 6

2016

The abortion debate: a contribution from Ibuanyidanda

perspective
Peter B. Bisong
University of Calabar, pbbisong@yahoo.com

Joseph N. Ogar
University of Calabar, Niger, pbbisong@yahoo.mail

Asira E. Asira
University of Calabar, Nigeria, pbbisong@yahoo.com

Follow this and additional works at: https://aquila.usm.edu/ojhe

Part of the Medicine and Health Sciences Commons

Recommended Citation
Bisong, P. B., Ogar, J. N., & Asira, A. E. (2016). The abortion debate: a contribution from
Ibuanyidanda perspective. Journal of Health Ethics, 12(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.18785/
ojhe.1202.06

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by The Aquila Digital Community. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Journal of Health Ethics by an authorized editor of The Aquila Digital Community. For more information,
please contact aquilastaff@usm.edu.
The Abortion Debate: A Contribution from Ibuanyidanda Perspective

Peter B. Bisong – University of Calabar, Nigeria; Joseph N. Ogar – University of Calabar,

Nigeria & Asira E. Asira –University of Calabar, Nigeria

ABSTRACT

The morality of abortion has been the subject of debate among scholars for many years. The
anti-abortionists query the rationale behind the destruction of one individual (the fetus) for the
survival of another individual (the mother). The pro-abortionists on the other hand point to the
benefit of abortion to the mother and the society at large as a veritable reason for the support of
abortion. The concern of this research is that the pro-abortionists seem to be winning the
debate, as more and more countries are legalizing abortion, and in the countries where abortion
is still illegal, like Nigeria, the law is being defied daily and people are committing it en masse.
This work aims at resolving and possibly reversing this trend by attempting to proffer sufficient
reasons why abortion should be discouraged. This, it is hoped, will counter the pro-abortionist
view which has provided the impetus for many to undergo abortion. Ibuanyidanda philosophy
provides us with a suitable framework for the articulation of a different way to conceive human
relationship and abortion in particular. The fetus is a missing link of reality that must be
sustained in existence to keep in balance the complementary horizon inherent in the world.
Ibuanyidanda conceives all missing links as constituting a complementary horizon which must
be sustained to avoid the boomerang effect. It is based on this that we developed a moral
argument that counters the anti-abortionist views. Abortion is wrong because the fetus is part of
the complementary horizon that binds all reality into a unified whole. Abortion puts a knife to this
complementary web. This work made use of philosophical methods like speculations,
evaluation, criticism and argumentation in the assessment of the problem of abortion.

The Abortion Debate: A Contribution from Ibuanyidanda Perspective

Peter B. Bisong – University of Calabar, Nigeria; Joseph N. Ogar – University of Calabar,

Nigeria & Asira E. Asira –University of Calabar, Nigeria

INTRODUCTION
The morality of abortion has been contested for many years now. It is a debate that has
engaged the philosophers, scientists, psychologists, medical experts, ethicists, religionists and
other scholars. Many have argued against abortion (anti-abortionists) and many have argued in
favor (pro-abortionists) of it. The debate continues, and the pro-abortionists seem to be winning
the debate, as more and more countries are legalizing abortion. The anti-abortionists are in
essence not giving up, for though many countries are still considering legalizing it, many have
declared it illegal.
The Pro-abortionists argue that abortion is right. Derek (1993) for instance, points at the
reduction of the death rate due to abortion since the legalization of abortion in America as a
reason to support abortion. Other scholars like Harris (1985) argue that "the embryo or the fetus
has no brain; hence ,lacks value and should be aborted at will." Appleton (2015) supports this
position and argues that a fetus could only be said to be human if it has the capacity for mental
functioning or consciousness. Hence, until a fetus develops a neurological body, it is not human
and can be terminated. Ikwun (2006) argues that abortion is right because it prevents
overpopulation. Others reasons given for the argument against abortion include: the argument
that women have the right to do whatever they want with their body; the fetus is a property of the
woman and she could do whatever she wants with it; the woman’s right supersedes that of the
fetus, and thus in cases of danger to the mother the child should be aborted; abortion helps in the
reduction of unwanted children who most often end up as street children and hoodlums.
On the other hand, those in opposition of abortion also give a lot of reasons for their
stance. Noonan (1989) for instance argues that the fetus is human because it is conceived by
human parents, and on the basis of its humanity need not be aborted. He argues further that at
conception the fetus receive genetic code which determines its characteristics as a human being.
Koop argues in support of Noonan that, "human life begins at conception and is continuous
whether intra or extra-uterine until death"(1989). According to Beckwith, engaging in
intercourse is an indirect statement of responsibility for a baby, and thus when it comes, it must
be maintained in existence. He writes: "the fact that he engaged in an act, sexual intercourse,
which he fully realized could result in the creation of another human being, although he took
every precaution to avoid such a result" (1992). Abortion he holds "opposes family morality,
which has as one of its central beliefs that an individual has special personal obligations to his
offspring and family which he does not have to other persons." Other reasons given by anti-
abortionists include: the fetus is created by God in his image and thus should not be tempered
with; abortion promotes promiscuity; abortion denies the inherent right of the fetus to life;
abortion is using wrong to correct the wrong; abortion is murder and is as bad as murder since
the fetus is a human being, et cetera.
This work aims at supporting the anti-abortionists, who seemingly are the losing side, for
many countries have legalized abortion and many more are considering doing so. Even in those
countries where abortion is illegal, abortion still goes on en masse. This work wishes to
strengthen the argument of the anti-abortionists with the hope of deterring people from
committing it. It bases its argument on Ibuanyidanda philosophy.
Ibuanyidanda philosophy avers that "to be, is not to be alone but to be in a mutual
complementary relationship of joyous service" (Asouzu 2004). This is because "anything that
exists serves a missing link within the framework of the totality” (Asouzu 1990). This means that
all beings are graspable only if they are grasped in relations to other beings, implying that
everything exists in a complementary relationship that must be preserved to avert the boomerang
effect. Any attempt, according to Asouzu, to negate the existence of the other missing links
boomerang on the offender.
Arguments for and against Abortion
There are different arguments for and against abortion - the pro-abortionists and the anti-
abortionists.
The Pro-Abortionists Argument for Abortion
There are a series of arguments that have been put forth over the years to support
abortion. These include:
1. Abortion frees the mother from economic burden. This group argues that abortion is right
if a child is going to be a financial burden to the parents, especially for single parents.
2. Abortion prevents health complication and death. This group argues that when the life of
a woman is seriously threatened as a result of the pregnancy, the life of the mother ought
to be saved through abortion of the embryo or fetus.
3. Abortion helps check overpopulation. Overpopulation according to Ozumba (2003) has
been a source of great concern to many nations. Ikwun (2006) believes this is because
overpopulation contributes to environmental degradation. Due to the negative effects of
overpopulation, many people believe abortion is good, as it controls population growth.
4. Abortion helps the pregnant woman to avoid social stigma. Those towing this line of
argument believe that the social conditions of a would-be mother is a necessary factor to
be considered in deciding whether abortion is right or not. Ekennia (2003) argues that a
person raped by arm-robbers or a family member could justifiably terminate the
pregnancy to avoid social stigma.
5. Abortion prevents Psychological Trauma. Those who favor this argument like Anthony
(1999), argue that an unwanted child could constitute a psychological trauma to the
mother whenever she sees it, especially if she was raped. He believes that abortion could
help overcome this trauma.
6. Abortion is the right of the women. Most feminists according to Callahan (2007) believe
that abortion is an important source of liberation of women from men’s domination.
Abortion to them confirms that they have the right to do whatever they want with their
bodies. The fetus is part of their bodies, and thus they have the right to abort it or not.
Gomberg (1990) believes abortion should be seen as a refusal of the mother to nurture
her baby and not murder.
7. Abortion is right because the fetus is not a human being. This is the central thesis of most
pro-abortionists. They believe that the fetus is not a human being and thus could be
aborted. Thompson (1971) writes in support of this: "we have only been pretending
throughout that the fetus is a human being from the moment of conception … early
abortions do not comprise the subject matter for moral debate" (1971). Since a fetus is
not a human being, abortion is right, she claimed.

The Anti-Abortionists Argument against Abortion

The anti-abortionists have also advanced several argument to show that abortion is not
right or moral. These are:
1. The fetus is a human being, and thus abortion is murder. The anti-abortionists argue
that life begins at the point of fertilization. Anderson (2015), Valman and Pearson
(1980), Eboh (2005), Levitt (2015), Pahel (1987) and Ozumba (2003) all held the
belief that life begins at conception, and as such abortion is murder.
2. Abortion may lead to dangerous effects. Those in support of this argument like
Meechan (2015), Koop (1967) and Endres (2015) hold that abortion could lead to
medical complications in the present and the future, complications like ectopic
pregnancies, miscarriages, pelvic inflammatory diseases, sterility, tubal pregnancies
and menstrual problems. Due to the possible complications that result from abortion,
they argue that abortion is wrong.
3. Abortion is a sin against God: This is an argument that is based on Biblical teachings
that condemn murder of all sorts. The argument is that God created humans in His
image and the fetus too being human is created in the image of God. Destruction of it
 is tantamount to disruption of the plan of God which could bring the wrath of God on
the perpetrator.
4. Abortion leads to economic waste. Abortion is believed to be a waste of a country's
manpower and its resources. The resources used to undergo abortion, it is argued,
could be used in solving other economic needs. For countries that have legalized
abortion and use the country income to fund it, the proponent of this argument believe
it is unfair to use tax payers’ money to fund abortion.
5. Legalization of Abortion will lead to promiscuity and other Vices: Ozumba (2003)
and Uduigwomen (2006) believe that legalizing of abortion is like a license for
promiscuity, rape, robbery and assault.
6. The embryo is different from the mother. This argument is meant to oppose the
feminist arguments that the fetus is part of the women’s bodies and as such they could
do with it as they want. Adherents of this view like Anderson (2015) hold that the
embryo at conception is different from the mother genetically and thus cannot be said
to be part of the mother’s body, implying that abortion is murder of a distinct human
being. Thompson (1971) adds to this argument by claiming that the right to life of the
fetus outweighs the "right to life of the mother to decide what happens in and to her
body ."

An Overview of Asouzu’s Ibuanyidanda Philosophy

Ibuanyidanda is an Igbo aphorism which is a composite of three words, ibu (load), anyi
(insurmountable for) and danda (a species of ant). These words jointly mean, “no load is
insurmountable for danda the ant.” This in a literal sense means that no task is insurmountable by
people who work in unison. Asouzu got his inspiration from the traditional and anonymous
philosophers who upon observing the activities of the ants, and how they are able to carry loads
that appear bigger than them when they do a cooperative work, inferred that humans too, when
they act in like manner, could overcome tasks that will not be overcome if each work
individually.
Asouzu explains that the aim of his Ibuanyidanda ontology is to bring forth a better
conception and understanding of the nature of being, which will bring into cognizance the
comprehensive and complementary nature of reality. He criticized most discussion of beings
before him as being dichotomized and built on a polarized mindset like that of Aristotle.
Aristotle, according to him, makes a supremacist distinction between substance and accidents,
thereby tending to make the existence of one dependent on the other - that is accidents depending
on substance for their existence, while substance depending on nothing for its existence. This
means that accidents cannot be thought of without substance while substance can be thought
without accidents (2007a). Asouzu criticizes this view, on the ground that if a distinction is
drawn as done by Aristotle between substance and accidents, then substance itself cannot be
conceived of independent of accidents because accidents need to exist before substance can be
thought of; there must be accident before a distinction could be made between it and substance.
On the other hand, accidents can be thought of independent of accidents if there exists a
distinction between the two because there must be accidents to warrant this distinction. If this is
true according to Asouzu, then no substance will be needed to establish the existence of
accidents. In addition, following this distinction between substance and accidents, the existence
of substance could be made to appear superfluous, for it will seem as if it is substance that seems
to depend on accidents for existence. For example, at least in theory accidents like beauty,
height, color, etc. can be separated for independent analysis and assessment, but substance
cannot be known independent of accidents. This means that if there exists a distinction between
the two, it is accidents that should be superior and not substance. Asouzu concludes that if
substance and accidents are conceptualized in the manner of Aristotle, we will make the notion
of substance unintelligible and unknowable, or accidents replace substance and therefore will
cease to exist - for there will no longer be any accident. Thus a strict distinction between
accidents and substance according to Asouzu will end up totally exterminating substance or
accidents. He concludes that a proper conceptualization of being is that that holds a necessary
linkage between accidents and substance. In short, substance and accidents should be seen as
missing links, serving each other in a complementary related fashion.
Asouzu did not actually disagree with the distinction of substance and accidents by
Aristotle per se; he only disagrees with the mode of presentation of this distinction. For instance,
Aristotle puts substance over and above accidents and thus lets out a trail of venoms that has
affected and influence Western philosophy up to date, and through contacts with the West this
has percolated to other parts of the world, including Africa. This mode of reasoning he believes
is very evident in our interpersonal relationship. The West, in the mindset of Aristotle for
instance, sees itself as superior to the rest. In the same manner the rich are placed above the poor,
the educated above the uneducated, the wise above the unwise, the male above the female, the
master above the slave, members of the same ethnic group above those from other ethnic groups
etc. Thus, according to Asouzu, being is that "which serves a missing link of reality (2007a).
To be, therefore, for Asouzu covers all that it takes for an existent reality to be depicted
within the totality. Thus, for Asouzu both substance and accidents are grasped as inseparable
dimensions of being - they are not conceived separately. Substance is captured by Ibuanyidanda
ontology as "what is most important" and accidents as "what is important." However, the status
of substance as something very important can only be true if it is grasped alongside the accidents
- as something that has head and tail-end and as something that shares the same complementary
framework with other beings (2007a). This is so because to be is to be in a mutual
complementary relationship with other human beings. This means that what is being cannot be
fully grasped, until we know the form of service it serves. This is due to the fact that we cannot
fully know a thing without knowing its functions, what it is made for and why it is the way it is.
Being therefore is known not in isolation but in a complementary framework. That is why
Asouzu defines being as "that which the mind intuits as substantial, but which can be grasped
indirectly by way of those accidents that give it, its character" (2007a). Outside of this existential
relationship being cannot be known. By conceptualizing being this way, Asouzu obliterates the
problems associated with the elevation of substance above accidents, introduced by Aristotle and
passed down to us through socialization, indoctrination and education. Substance and accidents
in Asouzu's Ibuanyidanda ontology are not perceived as in mutual exclusive opposition but as a
complementary unit. That is, substance and accidence exist in the same region of being.
Substance and accidents are missing links of reality, serving each other. This means (as the next
subheading will show) that the fetus and its mother are missing links of reality that serve each
other and must be maintained as such if the balance of the world is to be sustained.
Abortion Examined from the Ibuanyidanda Perspective
The argument of the proponents of abortion when measured against the truth and
authenticity criterion of Asouzu will fall flat. The truth and authenticity criterion demands that
we "never elevate a world immanent missing link to an absolute instance" (2007b). According to
Asouzu the truth and authenticity of any reality refers to the extent to which the mind recognizes
the total, comprehensive and ultimate foundation, which gives meaning to their existence. It
serves as "a regulative mechanism which checks against misuse and helps to minimize error of
judgment in all contentions and difficult existential situations of life" (2007a). It is like a
barometer that measures the extent to which a truth or knowledge claim or a judgment is
justifiable. Knowledge claim or judgment is justifiable to the extent at which it conforms to the
transcendent categories of unity of consciousness which are fragmentation, comprehensiveness,
unity, universality, wholeness and future reference (2007a). This means that judgment as to
whether or not abortion is right depends on whether the judgment takes into cognizance the
fragmentation, comprehensiveness, universality, wholeness and future reference of the issue.
This implies that any argument for abortion that does not take these categories into consideration
is bound to err.
Any argument for abortion that is not comprehensive enough as to take the interest of the
fetus, that of the mother, the society and the future generation into consideration does not meet
the truth and authenticity criterion as put forward by Asouzu and thus cannot be justifiably
correct. Any attempt to ignore any of these segments will tantamount to elevating a world
immanent missing link to an absolute instance thereby leading to error. So far no argument for
abortion has been comprehensive and holistic enough to encompass all these (the interest of the
fetus, the mother, the society and the future generation). This means that no argument for
abortion is capable of passing the truth and authenticity criterion test of Asouzu. The medical
argument that argues that the fetus could be destroyed if the life of the mother is at stake
considers only the interest and right of the mother and ignore others; the right of the fetus are
here not put into consideration, the societal needs are not considered, and the possible impact of
the child on the future generation (future referentiality) is not considered. The argument for
population control also falls under similar error. This argument only considers the interest of the
present society and ignores that of the fetus, the mother, and even the future generation. The
same is true of other arguments – they elevate one segment and ignore the others, thereby falling
short of the Asouzu admonition "never elevate a world immanent missing link to an absolute
instance" (2007b).
This work maintains with Asouzu that no course of action is right or justified which does
not take into consideration all the actors and factors that enters into the definition of its being. A
true and authentic definition of the elephant is one that takes into consideration all the
description given by the four blind men in the famous fairy tale of four blind men who
experienced the elephant differently. The elephant is not just a tail, not just a trunk, not just the
leg and not just the head, but rather all of these parts complementarily enter into the definition of
an elephant that could be justifiably considered as authentic. In the same light, the interest of the
fetus, that of the mother, father, society and the future generation necessarily enter
complementarily into the judgment of the rightness or wrongness of abortion. Whenever any of
these is left out of consideration, as most of these arguments on abortion tend to do, it renders the
judgment invalid. A valid judgment is one that is so embracing that it takes all factors into equal
consideration. The impact of Albert Einstein as a fetus on the society and that of the future
generation need to be considered alongside the interest of Albert Einstein himself and that of the
mother before a creditable decision will be reached as to whether to abort the fetus (Albert
Einstein). What appears to be weak and inconsequential today may become very significant
tomorrow; that is why Asouzu insist on the need to take the future referential dimension of all
missing links seriously. The fetus that is to be aborted today just to satisfy the mother's interest
may be worth ten times more to the society and the future generation than the mother if allowed
to live. This is why this work maintains along with Asouzu that all factors need to be put into
consideration before any true and authentic decision or judgment as regards the morality and
immorality of abortion can be put forth. By ignoring this fundamental condition, these theories
and arguments of the pro-abortionists err culpably and thus cannot be upheld as sufficient
arguments for the morality of abortion. These arguments tend to leave one or more of the
essential factors that should be included in a proper consideration of the subject matter.
The fetuses are missing links that must be held in a complementary existence. They must
not be viewed in isolation but in a holistic and comprehensive relationship with other missing
links of reality. This is because to be is not to be alone but to be in a complementary relationship
with others. Failure to see the fetus in terms of complementation with other missing links brings
forth arguments for its elimination. This is because when viewed in isolation, there will be no
strong reason to want to preserve it in existence, but when viewed in a totality and future
referential dimension, it becomes easy to appreciate the fact that fetuses need not be terminated
for whatever reason. When the mother’s life is at stake, nature should be allowed to decide which
of them should live and which should die.
The numerous arguments in favor of abortion could be said to have been knocked out by
our arguments above for failing the truth and authenticity criterion test. One argument that still
stands is the argument that denies the humanity or personhood of the fetus. If a fetus is not a
person, then it could not be said to have rights and interests that must be taken into consideration
before abortion is carried out. This will mean that abortion is morally okay, since it is not a
human being that is aborted.
However, when this issue is looked at from the eyes of Ibuanyidanda philosophy, it will
become immaterial whether or not the fetus is a human being or not. Ibuanyidanda philosophy or
complementary reflection does not advocate for a complementarity of human beings alone. This
is clear from the principle of missing links or integration which states: "everything that exists
serves a missing link within the framework of the totality" (Asouzu 1990).
This implies that whatever exists in reality whether living or nonliving is a missing link
within the framework of the totality. To understand fully well that Asouzu concept of missing
link is not just limited to human beings or living things, it is apt to quote this passage, which sees
missing links as:
Units and units of units, things and things of things, essences and
essences of essences, accidents and accidents of accidents, forms
and forms of forms, ideas and ideas of ideas, thoughts and thoughts
of thoughts etc, as these relate to each other in time and space and
with regard to other modes of this complementary relationship in
quantities and qualities, in kind and in differences as these seek to
build an intrinsic harmonious whole in mutual service (2007a).
According to Bisong & Tawor (2015) "Asouzu believes that all reality (nonliving things
included) forms an all-encompassing complementary whole, where all units form a dynamic play
of forces, which completes and supports one another." (emphasis mine). The fetus as a missing
link therefore, exists in a complementary relation with other missing links and thus must be
maintained in existence. Thus, since all missing links are important and need to be maintained in
existence, the fetus as a missing link needs to be preserved jealously because of its role in
completing the complementary web. This Ibuanyidanda philosophy could be extended to include
the animals, plants, and even stones, rivers, minerals and other things that make up the
ecosystem. They all contribute their services to make up the complementary horizon called
ecosystem. Any part of this reality that is exterminated, rubs off on the entire ecosystem. For
instance, if the forest disappears, the entire ecosystem suffers, as there will be increase in global
warming, acid rain, ocean acidity, flooding etc. When the animals are totally gone, it will affect
the plants as most plants need animals to pollinate them and also to disseminate their seeds to far
places for germination; this in turn will affect the humans as they will have limited sources of
plants and animals for food. All beings in the world are therefore important and need to be
preserved in existence. The fetuses too are very important as they are an important link between
the past and the future. To legalize abortion the world over is to weaken the future.
This researcher believes that it is the ambivalent tension laden existential situation and
the phenomenon of concealment that leads man to the belief that possession of life should be the
only reason for the attribution of respect and preservations. This is akin to those who argue that
rationality should be the criterion for the inclusion of a being in the moral community. Thus any
being like the animals and imbeciles and infants who are short of this rationality should be
excluded and seen as amoral agents that could be treated as the human (the rational) deem fitting.
This work distances itself from this bifurcating criteria, and tapping inspiration from Asouzu's
philosophy, asserts that the true and authentic criterion that should be used is existence. Thus any
being that exists, whether alive or not, deserves respect and good treatment. Existence is a better
criterion because it could pass through the truth and authenticity criterion of Asouzu as it takes
all beings into consideration. Choosing rationality for instance like Kant did as a criterion for
judging who and what should be included in the moral community unjustly excludes other beings
that do not have this rationality. Also choosing pain as a criterion like Jeremy Bentham did,
leaves out a lot of beings who are incapable of feeling pains. Taking life as a criterion leaves out
the beings that do not possess it. The same is true of consciousness, sensibility and communal
contribution. All these criteria postulated leave out something and thus are bound to err. This is
why Asouzu claims that any "truth claim that ignores the relativity of human existential situation
as to state apriori and apodictally what the case would be in all situations and fails to
acknowledge the fragmentary and referential nature of all missing links of reality is bound to err"
(2004). Existence is a better criterion because it takes into consideration all the beings that are in
the world.
Since existence is a better criterion for the measurement of the morality of a being, it will
mean the fetus is a moral agent irrespective of whether or not it is a human person or not, and
since it is a moral agent, it becomes immoral to destroy it. Abortion disrespects the fetus and
renders it incapable of serving other missing links in a complementary and future referential
dimension. It could therefore be said to be wrong and immoral to terminate a pregnancy.

CONCLUSION
In the light of the argument above, the work concludes that abortion results from a bifurcating,
polarizing and hegemonic mindset that is occasioned by the constraining mechanisms. Those
who commit abortion and those who argue in support of it do so from a mindset that is so
clouded that it fails to see that the fetus has interests and rights also, and these rights and interests
need to be upheld for the authentic existence of the actor. This set of people still see people in
terms of dispensable - indispensable, essential -inessential, superior - inferior etc and, helped by
the phenomenon of concealment, chooses the mother as the indispensable, essential and superior
that have a better claim to be served. The fetus is thereby negated via abortion because it is
inessential, dispensable and inferior. Our work sees none of the parties as dispensable; all are
indispensable and must be held in a complementary totalizing relationship.
 The arguments in support of abortion are faulty because they fail the truth and
authenticity criterion. These arguments fail to capture all the factors that should be taken into
consideration before a creditable decision of whether or not to abort a fetus could be taken.
Factors like the fetus’ interests, the mother's/father's interests, the society’s interest and the future
generation’s interest need to be captured in any true and authentic argument for abortion. This is
because as Asouzu avers, an action is right only when it takes into consideration all the factors
that will be affected by that action. For an argument in favor of abortion to be right, it must take
into consideration all the factors that will be affected by the abortion. So far most of these
theories do not. They emphasize one or two aspects and ignore the others.
The issue of the personhood of the fetus is not a necessary factor to be considered to
decide whether abortion is right or not. We believe that the fetus as a missing link to the
complementary whole deserves respect and preservation. All missing links (both living and non
living) share the same complementary horizon and deserve to be protected to ensure a balance in
the complementary web. Rationality, sensibility, consciousness and such other discriminatory
criterion should not be the basis to measure who is in the moral community and who is not. In
this work we put forth existence as the requisite criterion for a being to be included in the moral
community because this criterion takes into consideration all beings whether living or nonliving,
sentient or non-sentient, rational or non-rational, conscious or non-conscious. Thus with this it
becomes easy to see that the fetus deserves to be preserved because it exists and not because it is
a human. Its humanity is not so important here; its existence is what is important. This
neutralizes the pro-abortionists’ view that the fetus is not a human and thus could be aborted.
This was also the basis of the legalization of abortion in America where the Supreme Court cites
the controversy as to whether a fetus is a human or not as a yardstick for legalizing abortion.
 References
Anderson, K. (2015). "Arguments against abortion". https://www.probe.org/arguments-
against-abortion/. Retrieved July 2, 2015.
Anthony, E. (1999). Contemporary ethics: history, theories and issues. Ikeja: Spero Books.
Appleton, R. (2015). "The basics of bioethics". http://www.newdvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm.
Retrieved July 2, 2015.
Asouzu, I. (1990). "Progress in metaphysics: The phenomenon of missing link and
interdisciplinary communication". Calabar Journal of Liberal Studies, vol.2.no.2: pp.82-
91.
Asouzu, I. (2004). The method and principles of complementary reflection in and beyond African
philosophy. Calabar: University of Calabar Press.
Asouzu, I. (2007). Ibuaru: The heavy burden of philosophy beyond African
philosophy. Zweigniederlassung Zurich: litverlag GmBh & Co. KGWien.
Asouzu, I. (2007a). Ibuanyidanda: new complementary ontology beyond world-immanetism,
ethnocentric reduction and impositions. Zweigniederlassung Zurich: Litverlag GmBh &
Co. KGWien.
Beckwith, F. J. (1992). "Personal bodily rights, abortion and unplugging the violinist."
International Philosophical Quarterly. Vol.32. no.1: 56-78).
Bisong, P. & P. Tawor (2015). "Human right violation conundrum: Asouzu's ibuanyidanda
ontology as a remedy". Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal. Vol.2.no.4: pp.9-
15.
Brind'Armour, K. (2015). "Effraenatam" (1588), by Pope Sixtus V.
https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/effraenatam-1588-pope-sixtus-v. Retrieved on June 15,
2015
Calhoun, B; E. Shadigian & B. Rooney (2007). “Cost consequences of induced abortion as an
attributable risk for preterm birth and informed consent". J Reprod Med. Vol.52: pp.929-
939.
Derek, J. (1993). Every Woman: A gynaecological guide for life. Dahon: Safari Books.
Eboh, B. (2005). Living Issues in Ethics. Nsukka: Afro-Orbis Publishers.
Ekennia, J. (2003). Bio-medical ethics: issues, trends and problems. Owerri: Barloz Publisher.
Endres, Al. (2015). “The physical and spiritual effect of abortion”.
http://www/midwifery.or.uk/index.phb?option-com-content&view-article&id-
228:rheesus-negative-mother-&catid=91:hidden-archieves&itemid=110. Retrieved on
July 2, 2015.
Feinberg, J. (1984). The Problem of Abortion. California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Gomberg, P. (1990), "Abortion and the Morality of Nurturance." Canadian Journal of
Philosophy. Vol.21.no.4: pp.73-87..
Harris, J. (1985). The value of life: An introduction to medical ethics. London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
Ikwun, R. & G. Ntamu (2006). "Over population and the crises of hunger and property in sub-
saharan Africa: The way out". An African Journal of Philosophy. Vol.9.no.1: PP.108-
115.
Jordan, S.M. (1986). "The Moral Community and Persons." Philosophy Today. Vol.30. no.2:
pp.88-95.
Koop, S. (1976). The right to live: The right to die. Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 1976.
Koop, Schaeffer. The Right to Live: The Right to Die. Wheaton: Tyndale House
Publishers.
Levitt, S. (2015). The impact of legalizing abortion on
crime.http://ideas.repec.Org/a/ucp/jpolec/vll4y2006i4p744773.html. Retrieved on April
14, 2015.
Mahoney, K. (2015). “Biblical view of right to choose pregnancy and Christian teens.”
http://christianteensaboutcom/od/whatthebiblesayssabout/f/wbsaabprtop.htm. Retrieved
on July 2, 2015.
Meechan, M. (2015). “Abortion risks: A list of major physical complications.”
http://womenissues.about.com/oct/reproductiverights/abortionargument.htm. Retrieved
on July 1, 2015.
Noonan, J. (1987) An utmost absolute value in history of social ethics, morality and social
policy. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ozumba, G. (2003). Medical ethics: background and contemporary issues. Calabar. Pyramid
Publishers.
Pahel, K.R. (1987). "Michael Tooley on abortion and potentiality." The Southern Journal of
Philosophy. Vol.25: pp.123-145.
Reiley, M. M. (1985). "Personhood, covenant, and abortion." American Journal of Theology and
Philosophy. Vol.6. No.1: pp.143-154..
Sedensteir, B. (2015). "20 arguments against abortion, rebutted", www.patheos.com/.../20-
arguments-against-abortion-rebutted/. Retrieved on June 15, 2015.
Thomson, J. J. (1971). Rights, restitution and risk. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986.
Thomson, J.J.,"A Defense of Abortion." Philosophy and Public Affairs. Vol.1.no.1:
pp.23-34.
Tooley, M. (1983). Abortion and infanticide. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Uduigwomen, A. (2006). A companion of Christian philosophy and apologetics. Calabar:
Ultimate Index Books.
Valman, I.H.P & J. F. Pearson (1980). "What the fetus feels". British Medical Journal.
Vol.2.no.1: pp 233-234.