Question

lain how one might hold a moderate position on abortion and what problem might arise with trying to establish a moral dividing line during gestation. How does the idea of viability affect this discussion?

Answer 1

Nurses have opinions about abortion, but because they are health professionals and their opinions are sought as such, they are obligated to understand why they hold certain views. Nurses need to be clear about why they believe as they do, and they must arrive at a point of view in a rational and logical manner. To assist nurses in this task, the ethical issues surrounding abortion are enumerated and clarified. To do this, some of the philosophic and historic approaches to abortion and how a position can be logically argued are examined. At the outset some emotion-laden terms are defined. Abortion is defined as the expulsion of a fetus from the uterus before 28 weeks' gestation, the arbitrarily established time of viability. This discussion is concerned only with induced abortion. Since the beginning of recorded history women have chosen to have abortions. Early Jews and Christians forbade abortion on practical and religious grounds. A human life was viewed as valuable, and there was also the practical consideration of the addition of another person to the population, i.e., more brute strength to do the necessary physical work, defend against enemies, and ensure the continuation of the people. These kinds of pragmatic reasons favoring or opposing abortion have little to do with the Western concept of abortion in genaeral and what is going on in the U.S. today in particular. Discussion of the ethics of abortion must rest on 1 or more of several foundations: whether or not the fetus is a human being; the rights of the pregnant woman as opposed to those of the fetus, and circumstances of horror and hardship that might surround a pregnancy. Viability is relative. Because viability is not a specific descriptive entity, value judgments become part of the determination, both of viability and the actions that might be taken based on that determination. The fetus does not become a full human being at viability. That occurs only at conception or birth, depending on one's view of ensoulment. The fetus is owed some moral obligations because of its greatly increased potentiality. After a certain point it deserves legal and moral protection. A woman would have the right to be relieved of carrying the fetus, but she would not have the right to the death of the fetus.

A significant moral difference exists in these 2 concepts, and it is this issue that forms the basis of the debate concerning the conflict between maternal and fetal rights. When the rights of the fetus and those of the pregnant woman come into direct conflict the rights of the fetus are always subordinated to those of the women. The 3rd ethical foundation of the abortion debate, that of circumstances of horror and hardship surrounding the pregnancy, is really a combination of the first two. A fetus that is known to suffer from disease or deformity has as many or as few rights vis-a-vis the pregnant woman as does a perfectly healthy fetus. The assignment and hierarchy of fetal rights is not dependent upon the circumstances of conception. The next concern is whether the state can enter the private social spheres to regulate the personal activities of individuals. The Supreme court has never made a statement regarding the moral permissibility of abortion. The Court simply has prevented individual states from interfering with a woman's action based on her personal convictions. This is an important difference, and no step should be taken to abrogate this fundamental civil right.

The point of viability is theoretically fluid. As medical biotechnology advances, the point of viability will become earlier and earlier in fetal development. Theoretically, medical biotechnology could develop an artificial womb that can carry a developing human embryo to term. In this scenario, the viability criterion would be rendered useless and irrelevant. Artificial wombs are already being developed for large mammals, such as lambs - this issue is relevant (Hamzelou, 2017). Noonan’s objection ignores one major aspect of the rights-based ethics of fetal life: the right to life is negative, which means that one is obligated to refrain from preventing a certain state or activity. Therefore, in the situation of the right to life, one is required not to actively kill, but one is not morally required to preserve one’s life. Thus, a woman removing a fetus does not hinder the fetus’s right to life, but still does something that will result in its termination. In short, according to rights-based ethics, one could never be morally required to sustain another’s life, as the right to life is negative. Therefore, a woman could never be required to artificially implant her fertilized embryo in an artificial womb, and thus could not be morally required to sustain the burden of raising a child after the fetus is born. Additionally, the logistics of extracting a human embryo or fetus from a woman’s uterus can pose ethical controversies in regards to the rights of the mother. Forcing a woman to undergo a surgical procedure to remove an implanted embryo is problematic, as it could potentially compromise the maternal rights of autonomy, privacy, and life. Nash 88 Despite the technical fluidity of the viability criterion, it is the best quantifiable point during fetal development that can be used to determine the morality of abortions. This criterion protects fetuses that fall under the umbrella of other significant developmental critera, namely the ability to experience pain and the ability of higher brain function, without excluding those who experience abnormal development. It marks a distinguishing point during fetal development at which the fetal right to life outweighs the burdens of the pregnant woman because it is the point at which the fetus can theoretically survive independently of the pregnant woman. The viability criterion protects the rights of the pregnant woman to consent to her pregnancy, while also protecting the fetal right to life, after it is acquired. For these reasons, the viability argument is the most morally sound position when distinguishing a specific stage during fetal development that determines the morality of abortion..