People
certain inalienable rights
y
r
foundational
e
v
principles
deserves:
person
-life
- to receive an education
- to not be hungry
- legal protection
- to not be thirsty
- freedom of expression
- to have their own beliefs
- to have a home
click the
sticker
to start
helping
people !
- to earn fair money
- to be treated with respect
click the sticker
to join Abort73's
fresh campaign
to save babies!
read "The Revolution: a Manifesto" by Congressman Ron Paul
watch the silent scream it's a look into the life and death millions of the voiceless have led
surf www.hrw.org- human rights watch's coverage on current issues and infringements
act join amnesty international. they're focused on local, induvidual human rights activisim.
did you know?
at least one abortion
is performed every second,
somewhere in the world.
click here
to find out more.
join Abort73
in their fresh
fight against
abortion
HERE
have a heart
weekly action item
really, it's very simple.
just one rule.
yeah, it's cliche.
people say it all the time. "do unto others."
but Jesus knew what He was talking about when
He said all of the laws concerning people could be
summed up into this one principle.
we apply it to our day-to-day situations. that's good.
but it's not enough.
if you were so hungry that you had to dig in a
dumpster for your next meal, or so desperate for
water that you were drinking from a muddy river,
what would you want someone to do for you?
give youfree rice? free meals?free water? give you security? or sit at their desk and do nothing?
if you lived in a country where you were tortured for your beliefs, or or watched your family murdered by rebels - or even the government, what would you want someone to do for you?
educate themselves so they could tell people your story since you couldn't? or forget about you?
what if you felt so hopeless that you swore no one even knew you existed - or surely they'd come help?
you see, the golden rule really is much more than we've allowed it to be. we've regulated it to small
acts of kindness. we seem to forget that Jesus prefaced "do unto others" with: "now, in everything".
if you're reading this, you're probably in a 1st world country, wealthier than 80%of the rest of the world.
we're blessed to be a blessing. so get off your butt and be a blessing.
treat people
the way you would want
to be treated.
preamble
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
article 1
All human beings are born free and equal
in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience
and should act towards one another
in a spirit of brotherhood.
proportional map
of 1990-2007
conflict-related deaths
i.e. "newsworthy stories"
of 2007 cnn news
coverage by country
i.e. "news actually reported"
article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights
and freedoms set forth in this Declaration,
without distinction of any kind,
such as race, colour, sex, language, religion,
political or other opinion, national or
social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made
on the basis of the political,
jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs,
whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
nearly 400,000 people
have lost their lives in darfur
due to the conflict brought on by
religious and ethnic descrimination?
article 3
Everyone has the right to life,
liberty and security of person.
worldwide abortion stats:
42 million per year
115,000 per day
4,792 per hour
80 per minute
more than one abortion occurs every second
article 4
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade
shall be prohibited in all their forms.
visit free the slaves
for an interactive map
on modern day slavery.
- there are 27,000,000 slaves in the world today.
- over 14,500 are trafficked into the u.s. annually.
- the average cost of a slave is $90.
article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture
or to cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment.
"Immersion in sewage, ripping out fingernails,
sleep deprivation, cigarette burns
and beatings with electric prods -
these are some of the torture methods used by
China's police and prison officers to extract
confessions and maintain discipline . . ."
- UK's Guardian
article 6
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in Roe vs. Wade:
"if the suggestion of personhood
of the fetus is established,
the case, of course, collapses,
for the fetus' right to life
is then guaranteed specifically
by the 14th Amendment."
article 7
All are equal before the law and
are entitled without any discrimination
to equal protection of the law.
All are entitled to equal protection
against any discrimination in violation
of this Declaration and against
any incitement to such discrimination.
article 8
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy
by the competent national tribunals
for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
article 9
No one shall be subjected
to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Since October 7, 2001, when the current war in Afghanistan began, 775 detainees have been brought to Guantnamo. Of these, approximately 420 have been released without charge. As of May 2008, approximately 270 detainees remain.
More than a fifth are cleared for release
but must nevertheless remain indefinitely
because countries are reluctant
to accept them.
article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality
to a fair and public hearing
by an independent and impartial tribunal,
in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
- There have been 234 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States.
- 17 of the 234 people exonerated through DNA served time on death row.
- The average length of time served by exonerees is 12 years.
ethnicities of the 234 exonerees:
140 African Americans
64 Caucasians
20 Latinos
1 Asian American
9 whose race is unknown
article 11
1 Everyone charged with a penal offence
has the right to be presumed innocent
until proved guilty according to law
in a public trial at which he has had
all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
2 No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be
imposed than the one that was applicable
at the time the penal offence was committed.
article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection
of the law against such interference or attacks.
article 13
1 Everyone has the right to freedom of movement
and residence within the borders of each state.
2 Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
article 14
1 Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy
in other countries asylum from persecution.
2 This right may not be invoked in the case
of prosecutions genuinely arising
from non-political crimes
or from acts contrary to the purposes
and principles of the United Nations.
article 15
1 Everyone has the right to a nationality.
2 No one shall be arbitrarily deprived
of his nationality nor denied the right
to change his nationality.
article 16
1 Men and women of full age, without any limitation
due to race, nationality or religion,
have the right to marry and to found a family.
They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2 Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3 The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to
protection by society and the State.
nearly 60 per cent Afghan women
are married before the age of 16,
with some married
as early as nine years old.
article 17
1 Everyone has the right to own property alone
as well as in association with others.
2 No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of
thought, conscience and religion;
this right includes freedom to change
his religion or belief, and freedom,
either alone or in community with others
and in public or private,
to manifest his religion or belief
in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
"The Chinese government has asked for the shut down of all house church meetings
and the arrest of house church leaders and traveling evangelists . . .
Because members of unregistered churches must meet secretly in a
bandoned buildings, woods, even caves, and because their numbers grow
exponentially (some estimate 35,000 daily), their need for prayer,
Bibles and training is desperate and virtually insatiable."
- China Aid
article 19
opinion and expression; this right
includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media
and regardless of frontiers.
article 20
1 Everyone has the right to freedom of
peaceful assembly and association.
2 No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
article 21
1 Everyone has the right to take part in
the government of his country, directly
or through freely chosen representatives.
2 Everyone has the right of equal access
to public service in his country.
3 The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be
expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall
be held by secret vote or by equivalent
free voting procedures.
article 22
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization,
through national effort and international
co-operation and in accordance with
the organization and resources of each State,
of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity
and the free development of his personality.
article 23
1 Everyone has the right to work, to free choice
of employment, to just and favourable conditions
of work and to protection against unemployment.
2 Everyone, without any discrimination,
has the right to equal pay for equal work.
3 Everyone who works has the right to just
and favourable remuneration ensuring
for himself and his family an existence
worthy of human dignity, and supplemented,
if necessary, by other means of social protection.
4 Everyone has the right to form and to join
trade unions for the protection of his interests.
About 0.13%
of the world’s population
controlled 25% of the world’s
financial assets in 2004.
click the dollar
to find out where
the world's
priorities are.
article 24
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure,
including reasonable limitation of working hours
and periodic holidays with pay.
companies using sweatshops:
- Banana Republic
- Ralph Lauren
- Kohl's
- Guess?
- The Gap
- Old Navy
- Tommy Hilfiger
- Reebok
- Levi Straus
- Liz Caliborne
- Wal-Mart
- Mattel
- Nike
- Phillips-Van Heusen
- Disney
join the ASSLLeague in boycotting them .
article 25
1 Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself
and of his family, including food, clothing, housing
and medical care and necessary social services,
and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack
of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
2 Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in
or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
- Over half the world lives
on less than $2.50 per day.
80% of the world lives on
less than $10 per day.
- Approx. 30,000 children die each day due to poverty.
click the chart to find out more
article 26
1 Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages.
Elementary education shall be compulsory.
Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
2 Education shall be directed to the full development
of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.
It shall promote understanding, tolerance and
friendship among all nations, racial or religious
groups, and shall further the activities of the
United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
3 Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable
to read a book or sign their names.
Less than 1% of what the world spent every year on weapons
was needed to put every child into school by the year 2000.
It didn’t happen.
visit globalissues.org
to find out more
article 27
1 Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
2 Everyone has the right to the protection of
the moral and material interests resulting from
any scientific, literary or artistic production
of which he is the author.
article 28
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth
in this Declaration can be fully realized.
"These power relations and exercises of statecraft are obscured in the current talk about globalization. Far from being just a collapsing of distance and widening of opportunities for all, the increasing mobility of information, finance, goods and services frees the American government of constraints while more tightly constraining everyone else. Globalization and the global supervisory organizations enable the United States to harness the rest of the world to its own rhythms and structure."
-Professor Robert Hunter Wade
America's Empire Rules an Unbalanced World
article 29
1 Everyone has duties to the community
in which alone the free and full development
of his personality is possible.
2 In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations
as are determined by law solely for the purpose
of securing due recognition and respect
for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order
and the general welfare in a democratic society.
3 These rights and freedoms may in no case
be exercised contrary to the purposes
less than 3 in 10 americans
did volunteer work in 2005.
article 30
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted
as implying for any State, group or person
any right to engage in any activity
or to perform any act aimed at the destruction
of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
equality
discrimination
life
slavery
torture
personhood
legal protection
remediation
detention
fair trial
legal innocence
privacy
travel
asylum
citizenship
marriage
property
beliefs
self expression
assembly
government
opportunity
work
rest
living standard
education
arts
order
responsibility
respect
the universal declaration of human rights is housed within the united nations website.
is partial birth
abortion ethical?
essay by melissa wilson
senior ethics thesis
queens university of charlotte
december 2004
"If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment."
- Roe vs. Wade, 1973
Is partial birth abortion ethical?
In 1973, Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun wrote conceivably the most controversial court decision in history, decriminalizing first-trimester abortions (Blackmun 926-928). Blackmun cited a number of arguments in favor of the woman’s right to abort, including the Ninth Amendment’s broad reservation of rights to the people, a forced “distressful” life of maternity, possible psychological harm, the strain on mental and physical health due to child care, grief to all involved with an unwanted child, the negative stigma of unwed mothers, the potential of bringing a child into an unstable family, and the threat of medical complications to the mother (927). Since 1973, the pro-choice movement has extended the same arguments to this case, that “the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision” (927). These arguments are also used to bolster those in favor of Partial Birth Abortion, a more recent abortion legal controversy.
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was introduced to Congress in 1995 and passed in both the House (281 ayes; 142 nays) and Senate (64 ayes; 34 nays) in 2003 (“Misconceptions and Realities”). Its passage sparked a tirade of political debates on the ethics of Partial-Birth Abortion, as shown in Senator John Kerry’s statement in 2003: “President Bush has signed legislation that takes a step backwards [sic] for women as his stealth agenda to roll back the right to choose is pushed forward” (Quotes and Votes 4).
1/17
Several points within the past decade sparked the tumultuous debate, including the circulation in 1992 of a paper written by Ohio abortionist Martin Haskell that instructs how to perform the procedure; an “eyewitness account of Brenda Pratt Shafer, a nurse who was ‘very strongly pro-choice’ until she witnessed a partial-birth abortion close up;” the testimony of two major societies of anesthesiologists “that by the late second trimester, the unborn child is very responsive to painful stimuli, and that it is not much responsive to the anesthesia given to the mother,” as earlier believed; the disproof between 1996 and 1997 by journalists from American Medical News, the Washington Post, Bergen Record, and PBS that only several hundred PBAs are preformed annually; the 1997 admission by National Coalition of Abortion Providers Ron Fitzsimmons (with agreement and support from other abortion providers) that “in the vast majority of cases,” PBAs are preformed on “a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along; and the 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision to strike down a Nebraska PBA ban (“Misconceptions and Realities”).
For the sake of political correctness, we will pause briefly to discuss terminology. Camps from both sides cry “foul” at the use what they believe to be loaded language. Loaded language is inherently unethical, as it aims intentionally at provoking an emotional response through a peripheral route of persuasion, rather than through central route, conducive to reasoning. For this reason, we will distinguish between four important terms and reasonably choose the most appropriate two, as in distinguishing will also provide some background material on the debate.
Pro-lifers insist on using the term “unborn child” as opposed to “fetus,” insisting that the latter de-personalizes life. However, here, we will use the term “fetus,” since upon examination of the Oxford American Dictionary definition of “fetus,” we read that the word
2/17
means “the unborn … offspring of a mammal, esp. a human one more than eight weeks after conception” (Oxford, 287). In addition, “fetus” is Latin for “unborn child,” a fact of which many people are not aware (Kennedy 108). If pro-lifers and pro-choice advocates then apply deductive reasoning, both will conclude that a fetus is an unborn offspring, which is an unborn child. Pro-choice supporters receive their desired terminology and pro-lifers obtain their desired definition.
Additionally, debate ensues over the use of the term “Partial Birth Abortion” (PBA), as pro-lifers accept the term and those who are pro-choice “insist that anyone writing about the bill should say that it bans a procedure ‘known medically as intact dilation and evacuation [D&X]” (“More Objective Term”). Interestingly, PBA is not defined within medical science, since the term “abortion” applies only to pregnancies terminated before a fetus is viable (“PBA Procedures”). Nevertheless, the common public generally understands “abortion” as the termination of any fetus. However, Congress chose the term “Partial Birth Abortion” for the wording of its Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (HR 1833) for the reason that “’intact dilation and evacuation’ is not a standard, clearly defined medical term,” thereby potentially rendering the term useless to achieve the bill’s ban (“More Objective Term”). Dr. Martin Haskell, who has preformed over 1,000 partial-birth abortions and also authored the instructional paper that sparked controversy over the procedure, provided sworn testimony in a 1995 Ohio lawsuit that “[I] first learned of the method when a colleague described very briefly over the phone to me a technique I later learned came from Dr. McMahon where they internally grab the fetus and rotate it and accomplish [what is] somewhat equivalent to a breech type of delivery” (“More Objective Term”). While “a partial breech delivery is not considered a ‘birth’ at common law, [since] it is the passage of the head that is essential,” (“Partial-Birth Abortion Laws”), the term
3/17
“PBA” does not suggest an entire birth, but rather a partial, or incomplete birth, so for this reason, and since PBA is the term used by Congress, this is the term we will use herein.
According to an America Online members site, the PBA procedure, preformed during the second and third trimesters (18 to 26 week range), entails: 1) Inducing a breech delivery with forceps; 2) Delivering the legs, arms, and torso only; 3) Puncturing the back of the skull with scissors or a trochar; 4) Inserting a suction curette into the skull; 5) Suctioning the contents of the skull so as to collapse it; 6) Completing the delivery. (“Partial Birth Abortion Laws”). The executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers estimated in 1997 that between 3,000 and 4,000 PBAs are preformed annually in the United States (“PBA Procedures”). The Alan Guttmacher Institute (affiliated with the Planned Parenthood Federation of America) gave an estimate of 2,000 PBAs annually. Pro-lifers state that “it is hard to understand why any abortionist would report that he was performing such abortions if he was not, but easy to imagine that many would throw the survey in the wastebasket (“Misconceptions and Realities”). Therefore, the pro-lifers are somewhat accepting of NCAP’s estimate.
A Constitutional Analysis of the PBA ban included on the National Organization for Women website has referred to PBA as “a tragic procedure that everyone wishes were not necessary,” before going on to say that the writer doubts that “experimenting with the lives and health of women, and with their ability to control their own reproductive destiny, represents a fit occasion for such a show of federal force” (Tribe). PBAs are preformed for various reasons including about 20% for genetic reasons and about 80% for elective reasons (“Is it Really Happening?”). A 1996 LA Times article listed some of the medical reasons as including cleft plates, cystic hygroma, and cystic
4/17
fibrosis for the fetus; and depression, chicken pox, diabetes, and vomiting for the mothers (“Is if Really Happening?”). A 2002 poll among physicians conducted by Medical Economics asked obstetrician-gynecologists, “Should the procedure that’s often called ‘partial-birth abortion’ remain legal?” Fifty-seven percent supported a ban, 33% supported legality, and 10% were unsure (“Misconceptions and Realities”).
The ethical dilemma is apparent to the casual citizen. Whose rights are more important, the mother’s or the fetus’? The same question is asked of abortion in general, but is magnified to the Nth degree for PBA because of the argued viability of the fetus outside of the mother’s womb (at second and third trimesters, birth of a child would be a premature infant, or a “preemie”), as well as the notion that it is difficult not to recognize the fetus as a human being at this stage, as opposed to first trimester abortions for which some pro-lifers argue that the fetus is a collection of cells, and since not resembling a human being, therefore not deserving of the basic right to life. Many pro-lifers fear that a ban on PBA could lead to further restrictions on abortions, in effect, slowly chipping away at the Roe v. Wade ruling of a woman’s right to choose.
In a Utilitarian approach, the matter is decidedly an ethical issue, since an “action” of whether or not to perform a PBA is in question. The first question then, for Utilitarianists to answer is what the consequences (costs and benefits) will likely be for each action (“Utilitarianism, Kantianism, & Virtue”). For this, the following chart is best suitable:
5/17
(the origional chart has been converted
to a list for the purposes of this website)
Costs of Partial Birth Abortion
Loss of viable human life
Intense physical pain for the fetus
Psychological stress on the mother
Recurring guilt for the mother
Parents may have wanted to adopt the child
Unanswered questions about what could have been
Benefits of Partial Birth Abortion
Unwanted child will not enter the world
Mother is not forced to raise a child
Mother can control her life ambitions
In some cases, mother can preserve health
Benefits of Delivery
Human life is sustained
Intense physical pain to the child is avoided
Baby could be wanted for adoption
Mother could grow to want and love the child
The child has a future full of possibilities
Costs of Delivery
Unwanted child will enter the world
Mother may not be financially stable enough
Family may not be psychologically stable
Child may end up orphaned
Mother’s ambitions may be hindered
Mother’s health may be endangered
6/17
From this chart, we must decide which consequences are good in a very practical sense. In dealing with the avoidance of pain (physical or mental), those against PBA tally points for: avoiding intense physical pain to the fetus and avoiding the psychological stress and guilt associated with an abortion. Those for PBA gain points for:potentially preserving the health of the mother (though as earlier stated, PBA is rarely used for the preservation of the mother’s health), avoiding an unwanted child which could cause pain for the mother and those in the mother’s immediate life, and avoiding a potential orphan case. For answers to pleasure, the anti-PBA camp garners points for: a life of possibilities for the child, the potential of a positive relationship between the mother and child, and the possibility of adoption by a family desiring a child. PBA supporters claim points for the mother’s ability to control her life ambitions.
To narrow down these conclusions, we would assume that the strongest incident of pain (which Utilitarianists attempt to avoid) would be that of the intense physical pain experienced by the fetus during a PBA, since PBAs are not often preformed for the sake of the mother’s health and, with any childbearing, the assumption of pain and discomfort is present, understood, unavoidable, and expected. Additionally, emotional, psychological, and financial pain is often associated with birthing a child; even those who wanted the child can experience postpartum depression, a strain on their checkbooks, and household stress of new responsibilities. For these reasons, these “avoidance of pain” arguments for those in favor of the right to PBA are not compelling enough to trump the not-as-common physical pain to the fetus during a PBA. In fact, according to 2004 US District Court testimony in California, “between weeks 20 and 30, an unborn child has more pain receptors per square inch than at any other time, before or after birth, with only a very thin layer of skin for protection… Mechanisms that inhibit or moderate
7/17
the experience of pain do not begin to develop until weeks 30-32. Any pain the unborn child experiences before these mechanisms form is likely worse than the pain an older child or adult experiences” (“Pain of the Unborn”).
We would also assume that there are two strong instances of pleasure, that of the right to life, and that of the mother’s ability to control her own life. If an estimated 3,500 PBAs are preformed annually, we then assume that 3,500 mothers then have the ability to control their own lives and also that 3,500 lives were lost. Since these two numbers cancel each other out, a conclusion of the “greatest good” from a rule utilitarian viewpoint seems unreachable, since no one can say for sure how many of those 3,500 mothers ended up better off without the child, or whether if those 3,500 fetuses had been born, that they would have brought pleasure and/or lived productive lives (while the latter two criteria are highly subjective). A utilitarian would have a hard time creating a rule for PBA, so they would presumably go on a case-by-case basis. However, in order for a utilitarian to support a PBA, we can assume that the case for the mother’s pleasure would need to be highly compelling in order to trump the “pain to the fetus” factor.
Bioethicists, on the other hand, have a slightly more complicated set of scales to weigh ethical decisions on then a pleasure/pain level. The pleasure pain principles, however, can be equated with the beneficence / nonmaleficience factor (do good / do no harm) of bioethics (Clark), and therefore we can assume the above conclusions from utilitarianism for this facet of bioethical principles.
We then move on to autonomy, or the right to make decisions for oneself. Both those in favor of PBA and those opposed have strong arguments here, as those in favor cite the mother’s right to choose, while those opposed cite the fetus’ right to life, since it cannot choose to die an unnatural
8/17
death. However, here Bioethicists can likely argue that since a fetus is always innately unable to choose life or death – due to a lack of developed intellectual reasoning abilities – that the other individual whose body is directly affected and is capable of making such a decision should then be able to make her own decision. For, since autonomy is the right to make decisions for oneself, the fact that a fetus is always incapable of deciding would fall beneath one who can decide, since Bioethicists would not favor taking the right to decide away. In effect, the mother is not taking away the right to decision for the fetus if the fetus is incapable of decision; you cannot take away what one does not already have.
Bioethicists would likely consider an autonomous decision regarding PBA quite different from one regarding euthanasia. For example, in the case of the anonymous gynecology resident who euthenized a patient in great physical pain – yet without obvious consent from the patient (“It’s Over, Debbie,” 102) – Bioethicists would likely take issue with the lack of autonomy in her decision, since she indeed was capable of making a decision. However, if Bioethicists were to compare PBA to euthanasia, they would need to compare it to nonvoluntary euthanasia exclusively, and use for example a case of a comatose patient incapable of decision-making. If the patient’s mother is faced with extreme financial deprivation, emotional stress, and psychological trauma due to artificially sustaining the life of her child, she may choose nonvoluntary euthanasia for her child, since the child is incapable of making a decision and therefore theoretically incapable of autonomy.
We must note here briefly though, if we are comparing PBA to the nonvoluntary euthanasia of patients incapable of decision-making, that the goal of euthanasia is “a painless death free from the pain and intrusion of medical attempts to sustain life” (Hinman 109). Applying this presumably
9/17
well-intentioned definition to PBA however, fails. Most notably, PBA is not painless to the fetus. The National Right to Life takes issue with the pain incurred and cites Section 2 of the Humane Slaughter Act, 7 USC 1902 which states that “a method of slaughter is deemed legally humane only if ‘all animals are rendered insensible to pain by a single blow or gunshot or an electrical, chemical, or other means that is rapid and effective, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut’” (“Pain of the Unborn”), causing the NRLC to say that “an unborn child has less legal protection from feeling pain than commercial livestock” (“Pain of the Unborn”). Dr. Martin Haskell, an abortionist, testified in 1995 to the House Judiciary Committee that “the majority of fetuses aborted this way (PBA) are alive until the end of the procedure” (“Is it Really Happening?”).
Regarding the next bioethical principle of fidelity, ethicists have one basic factor to consider: the Hippocratic Oath, which reads as follows: “…That into whatsoever house you shall enter, it shall be for the good of the sick to the utmost of your power, your holding yourselves far aloof from wrong, from corruption, from the tempting of others to vice. That you will exercise your art solely for the cure of your patients…” (“Hippocratic Oath”). Yet, to whom is the doctor most morally compelled to show the fidelity of this oath to, the woman, or the fetus? The phrases “it shall be for the good of the sick” and “you will exercise your art solely for the cure of your patients” seem to be of centrality to the entire oath. PBAs protect the health of the mother – if not often physical, arguably protective of the psychological and emotional health of the mother, since PBA bans contain maternal “life” exceptions, but not necessarily maternal “health” exceptions (“Partial-Birth Abortion Laws”). But then, is a doctor responsible for protecting these latter two health aspects at the cost of terminating a viable fetus the converse of curing a fetus’
10/17
life? This would depend upon whom the doctor considers his primary patient, and whether or not he even considers the fetus to be his patient. If he does not, then the primary patient he owes his fidelity to is the woman.
There is one final and crucial facet to bioethical decision-making, and that is the ability to make fair and informed choices. A major exception that many opposed to PBA take is that women are not fully informed of the procedure before they elect to have it, and not only that, but also the public has not been made aware of the details. According to Dr. James Kennedy, a senior Presbyterian minister holding nine degrees,
"The media know that if any of these things were shown on television, this horror would come to an end … it is virtually impossible to get any television station in America to show a picture of an aborted child, but how many tens of thousands of victims of the Nazi holocaust have been shown… pictures of slaves… burnt bodies of people from the Vietnam war brought right into our living rooms?" (Kennedy 99)
A 2004 Zogby poll of more than 1,200 people found that 77% of citizens favor laws “requiring that women who are 20 weeks or more along in their pregnancies be given information about fetal pain before having an abortion” (“Pain of the Unborn”). Considering the importance of informed consent to bioethics, it is safe to assume that Bioethicists would favor the readily accessible information to the public, as well as the mandatory information dissemination to women who have asked for a PBA.
Interestingly, the American Medical Association supported the ban on PBA (Hannity 182), but if we analyze the issue from these four-faceted bioethical principles, then we would conclude that since the woman is the only party
11/17
capable of an autonomous decision, Bioethicists would be in favor of the right to PBA under certain variables: 1) the physician views the woman as his primary patient (and ideally, does not consider the fetus to be his patient); 2) the woman is fully aware of all facts and details of the procedure; and 3) the public has ready access to accurate, detailed information about PBA. Because of the “woman’s autonomy” factor and variable number two above, these would likely be strong enough to trump the pain principle to the fetus.
Many of the arguments against PBA hinge upon religious ethics and the concern for respecting scripture, the sanctity of life, and natural law. Here, we will focus on the Christian religious ethics for the sake of time. According to Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780), there are three categories of law: Revealed Law (“found only in the Holy Scriptures”); Law of Nature (When God created man, “He laid down certain immutable laws of nature, whereby that free will is in some degree regulated and restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover the purport of those laws.”); and Municipal Law (“adopted by civil government [and] must conform to the higher law of God (Eidsmoe 60-61). Along these lines, the Christian understanding of the freedom afforded to us by the Constitution is that it is freedom to do what is ethically acceptable to scripture, not the freedom to do whatever one pleases. Charles Hummel explains this concept through the following example:
"Consider a modern diesel locomotive flashing across the country at high speed on shiny rails. Is that train most free when it is speeding across the countryside on the rails, or when it leaps the tracks and thunders by, smashing barns and houses and scattering cars and people? Obviously, it is most free when it is where it is meant to be. Liberty as the founders understood it meant liberty under God the freedom to do what is right." (Kennedy 56)
12/17
Regarding Natural Law, traditionally, the law holds that “acts which are ‘unnatural’ are always evil (Hinman 8), so accordingly, PBA is an unnatural termination of a fetus.
What then, does scripture say about abortion issues? Many in the pro-choice movement point out that the Bible does not explicitly forbid the termination of a fetus. However, pro-lifers have used a number of scriptures to bolster their viewpoint. The most popular is written by the Psalmist David: “You are the one who put me together inside my mother’s body, and I praise You because of the wonderful way you created me… Nothing about me is hidden from You! I was secretly woven together deep in the earth below, but with Your own eyes you saw my body being formed. Even before I was born, You had written in Your book everything I would do” (Psalm 139:13-14a, 15-16, CEV). From this scripture, Christian religious ethicists would cringe at PBA. Additionally, Christian ethicists quote Proverbs 6:16-17 which says that “the Lord hates those who shed innocent blood” (Kennedy 99).
In a California Medical Association editorial predating Roe V. Wade by three years, Dr. Malcolm Watts explained, “the traditional Western ethic has always placed great emphasis on the intrinsic worth and equal value of every human life regardless of its stage or condition. This ethic has had the blessing of the Judeo-Christian heritage and has been the basis for most of our laws and much of our social policy,” but then goes on to warn that “semantic gymnastics” have begun to “rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life” (Kennedy 103). As earlier mentioned, those against PBA opposed the use of the term “dilation and evacuation,” precisely for the “semantic gymnastics” they feel the term exercises, depersonalizing human life.
Regarding the sanctity of life issue, the word “sanctity” is
13/17
from the Latin “sanctus,” meaning “sacred, holy, or sanctified,” which are all theistic and spiritual concepts (Kennedy 112). Religious ethicists argue “sanctity of life” over “quality of life” because “quality” deals with material things, thereby abandoning “theistic ethics and accept[ing] an atheistic, materialistic ethic” (113). Therefore, religious ethicists would not consider the proposed quality of life for either the woman or the fetus when faced with the option of maintaining or destroying the fetus. So then, preserving life – that dealing with the spirituality – will take great precedence over quality of life – that dealing with the tangible.
In answer to the argument that a woman must have the right to control her own body, Christian ethicists answer, “[T]he baby is not a part of a woman’s body. Every single cell in the mother’s body has the same set of 46 chromosomes, exactly the same genes – except for the baby, who has an entirely different set of chromosomes and genes. The baby also has his or her own blood supply…” (Kennedy 110). In response to the viability question of whether or not the fetus is able to survive outside of the womb, Dr. Kennedy says, “a baby who is six hours or six months old is also totally dependent upon his or her mother. Leave the baby alone for a couple of weeks, and he will be dead” (110).
Clearly, for a religious ethicist, the right-to-life for the fetus trumps all other arguments.
Having examined PBA in light of three very different ethical principles, we now return to our original ethical question: Is Partial-Birth Abortion ethical? I argue emphatically that no; it is not the right thing to do under any circumstance, save for saving the mother from eminent death (in which case we can presume the “extra death” theory that we should at least attempt to save one life if we can).
However, if I am to logically explain my stand on PBA, I
14/17
will utilize a combination of all three of the ethical principles I have analyzed PBA through within this paper, since each contains one strong argument against PBA. But before I do, I will briefly use one additional ethical principle to bolster my position. John Rawls’ principle of justice derived from protecting “the most vulnerable in society” (Whalen) applies to PBA. The unborn are the most vulnerable in society because they have no voice. American society seems to embrace Rawls’ theory, if we take into consideration the current Flu vaccine conflict (Tabor). The government is asking that only the most vulnerable citizens in our society – the elderly, young children, pregnant mothers, and the ill – receive the flu vaccinations. Few will be willing to argue that these vulnerable members do not deserve the special treatment. In a 2003 address from the White House, President Bush roundly summed up Rawls’ theory:
"America stands for liberty, for the pursuit of happiness and for the unalienable right to life. And the most basic duty of government is to defend the life of the innocent. Every person, however frail or vulnerable, has a place and a purpose in this world. Every person has a special dignity. This right to life cannot be granted or denied by government, because it does not come from government, it comes from the Creator of Life." (Quotes and Votes 5)
