Theory of Knowledge
Blog Post #2: Abortion and TRAPs
Introduction to the ethical dillemas associated with abortion:
Abortion can be defined as the deliberate termination of a pregnancy. It is the ending of a pregnancy by removing a fetus or embryo before it can survive outside the uterus.
The ethical debate surrounding abortion has become more prominent over the past few years as people have become more aware of woman’s rights, especially those regarding rights to their body and their right to have a choice. There are two perspectives to abortion: Pro-life and Pro-choice.
Pro-Life:
People who regard themselves as pro life believe that intentionally caused abortion is always wrong. These people are considered categorical, those who locates morality in certain duties and rights, regardless of the consequences. Their ethical standpoint is categorical since they believe they have a certain duty/right to protect a fetus and they focus on the act of killing the fetus rather than the consequences of the baby being born.
Knowledge Questions:
-
How important are values (principles/ideals) in politics? Is politics primarly conerned with what is or what ought to be?
-
Does politics affect the ethics of a society?
-
Is knowledge effective if it is not applied appropriately?
-
To what extent are politicians responsible for implementing social and ethical beliefs?
An example of this is Texas’ HB-2 in 2013:
“Requires abortion clinics to meet the same building standards as out-patients surgical centres and requires their doctors to have hospital admitting privileges.” These laws sound great on the surface until you realise what they really mean. These building standards are hard to achieve, for example corridors need to be 8 feet wide, which allows two surgical gurneys to pass each other in a corridor. This feature is not necessary in abortion clinics. 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester where there is no need for surgery, only procedures that involve taking medication, none of which need a large operating facility.“Doctors have admitting privileges at a local hospital,” a requirement that 10 other states have passed, can shut a clinic down because many local clinics, for financial or political reasons, won’t grant them to a doctor who performs abortions and again, defenders of these laws will say they have a simple purpose: protecting women health.
In my opinion, I believe that TRAP laws are extremely unethical. The law states that abortion is allowed, but policies are allowed to be formed to protect woman. These policies have turned into forms of ending abortion completely. While the government thinks they are protecting woman, the less abortion clinics surrounding them, the harder the access, the higher the chance that women might take drastic measures to get rid of the baby. Some include, falling down the stairs, going to a dodgy, unsafe, unhygienic clinic, where infections through needles are highly possible. This creates a dangerous environment for the mother. It also delays the process of pregnancy, which creates more risks for the child and the mom. People who believe in TRAP laws are categorical. They look at the morality of the situation and then attempt to stop the ‘sinful act’ from occurring by implementing standards that are impossible to reach. People who don’t believe in TRAP laws are consequentialist. They might look at the situation and notice that woman should rather get abortions in a safe clinic instead of in an unhealthy manner. They look at the long run of a dilemma. Abortion is always a debatable topic in all regions due to religions and laws. I find this topic very interesting because are so many perspectives to look at the same situation. It can be looked at with reason, emotion and faith. It really brings me to question whether ethical dilemmas have a right answer- what allows us to form these opinions? Who is right? Is there a right answer?
Pro-Choice:
People who believe in pro-life are supporters of abortion rights and regard abortion as acceptable in some circumstances. These people are consequentialists, those who locate morality in the consequences of an act. These people look at the consequences of the baby being born: if the baby is unwanted, if the baby has a disease that will lower its quality of life, it is better that the baby is aborted.
*Look at the end of the page to see the arguments for both perspectives
"TRAP (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers)" Laws
Abortion Laws: John Oliver
In the United States of America, there are multiple laws put into place regarding abortion. These laws have changed from pro-life to pro-choice, with a few exceptions and conditions. After the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, states constructed a lattice work of abortion law, codifying, regulating and limiting whether, when and under what circumstances a woman may obtain an abortion. A majority of the states are considered to be pro choice and have put laws in place in order to ensure the safety of women. States have claimed that their purpose of these laws is to protect women since abortions will be done safely. These laws were created using utilitarian logic: if a baby is born unwillingly, the quality of life for the mother, the family and the baby will be relatively low- it maximises the happiness of the mother, family and the associated people. States created these laws using consequentialist reasoning as it is healthier for women to get a safe abortion as opposed to finding risky alternatives. Though it may be considered categorically wrong, these laws acknowledge that it is important to let women make their own choice as it is their body, their life and their choice.
Though the stated rational for these laws are wrong on its face. Though they state that these laws are intended to protect women health and safety, they do the exact opposite. The supreme court is compelled to do what is morally and ethically right, by implementing these laws, but because the people who create these laws believe that it is so categorically wrong, these laws that may seem beneficial are more harmful. Politicians say that they are going to implement laws relating to "pro-life" to get more votes from the public since they support freedom of choice, but when you look at the effect of the laws, they prevent legal and safe ways of abortion more than they allow it. Abortion is theoretically legal, but states make it practically inaccessible.
States can create restrictions as long as they don’t place “an undue burden that places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking abortion.” These new laws have contributed to the closure of about 70 abortion clinics in a dozen states since 2010. States have created what pro-choice supporters call “TRAP Laws,” Targeted regulation of Abortion Providers.
An example of a "TRAP" Law
I believe the discussion regarding abortion is very important. It is a very sensitive topic as people have strong opinions of both sides as there is an instinct to protect the foetus as it portrayed as helpless. There are two sides to the discussion, but I believe that abortion should be allowed. TRAP laws should not be in place because that is political powers taking advantage of the flexibility of the law. TRAP laws prevent women from a basic right by making it harder for them to abort. Other countries, in turn, might adopt these TRAP laws. Abortion is “each their own.” People have their own experiences and this shapes what decisions they make. An example of abortion is if a woman is not financially stable- is it mandatory for her to bring a life into the world whose quality of life would be low? Is it mandatory for her to bring her own quality of life down for another life? There are many instances where abortion should be acceptable (regarding the time of the abortion). It makes me angry to know that there are TRAP laws because these governments are two faced- though they preach one thing, they practice another. This brings around the question: To what extent are knowledgable people responsible for implementing their knowledge in daily life? In particular to this case: To what extent are politicians responsible for implementing social and ethical beliefs? It also brings around the question: Is knowledge effective if it is not applied appropriately?
Arugments for Pro-Life:
-
Abortion is murder: the killing of an innocent human being is wrong, even if that human being has yet to be born
-
Life beings at conception, so unborn babies are human beings with a right to live
-
Fetuses feel pain during the abortion procedure
-
Abortion causes psychological damage
-
Selective abortion based on genetic abnormalities (eugenic termination) is overt discrimination
-
Women should not be able to use abortion as a form of contraception
-
If a women becomes pregnant, they should accept the responsibility that comes with producing a child
-
Abortion eliminates the potential societal contributes of a future human being
-
Abortion promotes a culture in which human life is disposable
-
Abortion defies the word of God (Bible/Christianity)
Arguments for Pro-choice:
-
Reproductive choice empowers women by giving them control over their own bodies
-
Personhood begins after a fetus becomes “viable” or after birth, not at conception
-
Fetuses are incapable of feeling pain when most abortions are performed
-
Access to legal, professionally-performed abortions reduce maternal injury and death caused by unsafe, illegal abortions
-
Modern abortion procedures are safe and do not cause lasting health issues
-
Women who receive abortions are less likely to surfer mental health problems that woman denied abortions
-
Abortion gives pregnant women the option to choose not to bring fetuses with profound abnormalities to full term
-
Women who are denied abortions are more likely to become unemployed, to be on public welfare, to be below the poverty line and to become victims of domestic violence
-
Reproductive choices protects women from financial disadvantage
-
Abortion is justified as a means of population control
As you can see from the list above, the perspectives contradict one another. For example studies have shown that during abortion, fetuses feel pain while other studies have shown that it does not. People tend to go to information that supports their argument and their view whilst discarding other information. This may be the root of ethical conundrums, the fact that people have different information fed to since that forms their beliefs and moral values. For moral beliefs, can one distinguish between the source and the justification or are the two the same? If moral claims are in conflict, does it follow that there is no such justifiable concept as right or wrong? Does ambiguity in ethics make it “weak knowledge.”
The main ways of knowing used in ethical dilemmas is reason, faith and emotion. These three WOK’s work together to create our moral principles and guide us through ethical dilemmas. Reason works as a form of logic; it helps us differentiate right and wrong depending on what we have learnt/what we know. For example an example of deductive reasoning is: killing people is wrong → killing innocent human beings is wrong → human life begins at conception, therefore the fetus is an innocent human being, therefore killing the fetus is wrong, therefore abortion is wrong. Faith in religious can dictate our beliefs in moral situations- higher figures such as God (“abortion defies the word of God”). Emotions also impact how we made ethical decisions because our emotions make us bias. As a mother, you would most likely not support abortion because you have children and you know the wonderful feeling of that. Emotions can be used more than reasoning.