Abortion: A small reflection on a sensitive issue

Trigger warning beforehand: abortion is a sensitive, dreary and emotional topic. If you don't want to get worked up about certain things, you shouldn't read about it - it will save you a lot of trauma. But if you are interested in my opinion and want to know some facts at the same time, you are welcome to read on...

I am a philosopher. I rarely have a clear opinion, because doubt is the eternal companion of the wisdom seeker. Often I think, even after long reflection and much consulted reading, that I have an opinion but can neither justify it solidly nor am I really sure of it. Because somehow there are also good counter-arguments for many hotly debated topics.

Apart from that... One has to deal with the facts one way or another. When we talk about abortion, even the naming is difficult. German has a hard time with "ab-treiben" because it sounds so brutal. According to the Duden dictionary of origins, it comes from "abgetrieben", which means something like "fatigued" (generelly this man meant to refer to animals).[1] But it is also darkly reminiscent of unwanted offspring (be they human or pet) that used to come about due to lack of contraception, sterilisation, etc., and were eventually abandoned on a flowing body of water and, cruel as it is, floated down the river to their fate. This is probably the reason why people in Germany prefer to talk about "termination of pregnancy" (Schwangerschaftsabbruch). The French also bypass "avortement" (which also simply means "abortion" or "interruption") with an "interruption volontaire de grossesse" (voluntary termination of pregnancy), while the Anglophone world usually only talks about "abortion" (more rarely: "termination of pregnancy").

I.e. it is primarily a question of interrupting a pregnancy that is in progress and not "carrying to term" the potentially developing human being. The process of development from fertilised egg to birth is to be interrupted so that no human being sees the light of day.

The reasons why one has an abortion, the question of which reasons are justified, which are amoral, which are justifiable, whether anyone should be interested in why someone has an abortion... I would like to leave all this out of my considerations for the time being. For me, the more interesting and clearly more complex question is: Should abortion be generally prohibited in a state, when and for what reasons? Of course, the original question of "why ban?" is quickly answered: Because an abortion could be equated with the murder of a human being, and murder is forbidden in every country on earth, since one deliberately deprives a being endowed with human dignity of its life. With very few exceptions (military laws, euthanasia, capital punishment, etc.), killing another human being is always morally reprehensible because it interferes with that person's right and freedom to live.

This means that the argument for restricting abortion will actually almost always follow this line: Ending a human life is not allowed, abortion is equivalent to ending a human life, so it should not be allowed. The other side, i.e. allowing or extending the right to abortion, has two argumentation structures. One is that of freedom in various facets; e.g. the freedom to do what I want as long as I do not violate the freedom of the other in the process, or the freedom to decide about my own body. On the other hand, there is the argumentation of the danger of illegal abortions, where it is argued that abortions happen anyway, even if it is illegal - and in the case of illegally performed abortions, the person having the abortion risks his or her life (because it does not happen in hospitals with qualified staff under the best hygienic conditions).[2] Moreover, the effect on mental health is also not insignificant, as the social pressure is greater.

In the end, every argument has its justification and yet everything depends on the one determination: When does human life begin? When can we say of the foetus that it has human dignity and is a living being worthy of protection, which, despite the right to one's own body, may no longer be removed from one's own body because it is no longer one's own body but another body we are talking about? The "pro-life" argumentation from the USA is therefore misleading in terms of the meaning of the word, since one can only be "pro-life" in this sense if one considers any abortion to be the killing of a human life and if one is already talking about a human being at fertilisation. However, this is not the case with many "pro-life" supporters, who are rather advocates of the potentiality or continuity argument. Here, the born human being is seen in unbroken continuity with the born human being from which it develops, or, in the case of completed fertilisation, a living being has arisen that has the potential to develop into a full human being. In both cases, therefore, one does not immediately speak of killing a human being in the first weeks of an abortion, but of killing a potential human being. Since, however, according to the argumentation, it seems impossible to determine exactly when the baby becomes a human being, advocates of this movement reject any abortion. (That such a position seems very ironic in a country with a prevailing death penalty and the fact that even with a "pro life" policy many people nevertheless die due to problematic illegal abortion, may be left aside).

All those who consider themselves steadfast in reproductive biology can skim over the following passages. It is considered a little refresher for everyone's basic biological knowledge, so that you know what you are talking about.

 First, a diagram of the development of a fertilised egg:

Enclosed is a list of important stages in the development of an embryo (1st - 8th week of pregnancy) and foetus (from the 9th week) that could be considered scientific criteria for the actual beginning of human life. I will also mention the positions of the world religions at the respective points.[3]

1. Fertilisation/cell nuclear transfer

The first and frequently mentioned biological criterion for the beginning of life can be fertilisation, i.e. the fusion of egg and sperm (zygote). Here, genetic material from two partners is combined and marks the clear beginning of the development of an embryo. This criterion is decisive for Christianity (Catholicism as well as Protestantism) as well as for Buddhism.

2. Nidation

On the 4th or 5th day after fertilisation, the embryo comprises about 32 cells (blastocyst). The blastocyst now grows into the uterine mucosa and is fully implanted by the end of the first week after fertilisation.

3. Indivisibility of the embryo

Up to the 13th/14th day after fertilisation, a division of the embryo into two independently developing individuals, i.e. twinning, is possible. Some philosophers assume that the typical individuality of each person only develops after this time. Here the argument would be that a person's identity and thus personhood only begins at his or her individuality. It is usually at about this time that one knows about the pregnancy.

4. Start of cardiac activity

When the embryo is three weeks old, the activity of its s-shaped heart can be detected. It is not yet divided into atria and ventricles.

5. Formation of the nervous system

The formation of the central nervous system, especially the brain and the brain activity that depends on it, are indispensable prerequisites for mental and physical performance in humans. The formation of these structures takes place about 15-42 days after fertilisation. Due to an ambiguous passage in the Koran[4], for Muslims the imbibing of the soul and thus human life can begin after 40 days. The Jewish Orthodox tradition assumes the 49th day on which life (divine breath) is breathed into the embryo.

6. Safe abortion

This argumentation is in line with the German Embryo Protection Act that human life only begins and is worthy of protection after the phase of non-punishable abortion, i.e. after the 12-week period. However, abortion is still possible in Germany up to the end of pregnancy if there is a medical indication, in order to "avert a danger to life or a danger of serious impairment of the physical or mental state of health of the pregnant woman" (Section 218 a, b of the Criminal Code). The so-called 12-week time limit was enacted on the basis of medical evidence that the abortion will proceed without significant physical danger to the woman up to that point. The problem with this line of argument is that the 12th-14th week is not a significant criterion for the beginning of human life.

7. Noticeable movement of the child

A less scientific and more psychological conception of the beginning of human life for some people is the stage at which the foetus in the womb moves perceptibly for the person giving birth. On average, these movements are perceptible to the woman giving birth from the 16th week onwards. According to another interpretation of the Qur'anic passage already mentioned, human life would begin for some Muslims on the 120th day, i.e. approximately at the 17th week.

8. Extrauterine viability

Thanks to qualified and intensive medical care, premature babies are capable of survival and development from the 20th week. In the minds of some people, human life therefore begins at this point, because from this moment on the foetus is dependent on machine care but viable independently of the mother's body. This criterion corresponds to the legislation of the Netherlands and thus to the most liberal law regarding abortion. This point in time also corresponds to Peter Singer's argumentation, who argues with the sensation of pain: „Where the balance of conflicting interests does make it necessary to kill a sentient creature, it is important that the killing be done as painlessly as possible. […] If there are grounds for thinking that a method of abortion causes the fetus to suffer, that method should be avoided.“[5] Below are two pictures of a foetus in the 19th-20th week of pregnancy.

9. Birth

From a biological and physiological point of view, birth brings with it a new way of life, as the infant is now no longer supplied with nutrients and oxygen via the maternal circulation and releases excrement into it. With birth and the change to its own digestion and lung breathing, extrauterine life begins. According to more recent Jewish tradition, human life worthy of protection only begins with birth: „If the head of a child were already without the womb, it must not be killed to save the life of its mother in case of danger.“[6]

Because of these facts and because of my personality, I naturally have my own position on abortion at this point. Contrary to what one might expect, however, I cannot defend this as a thesis, since I do not make any claim to truth to my assertion from the outset. It is indeed a subjective point of view. This is mainly due to the fact that the topic has an incredible number of nuances and is ultimately also probably always approached emotionally - which in turn does not have to be a bad thing, because I think that one does not get very far here rationally.

Now for the justification of my opinion:

I do not find the absolute position of "from the fertilised egg it is a human being" particularly convincing. In my opinion, a blastocyst is nothing more than a heap of cells, because it lacks any human trait. Nothing, except the potentiality and the possible DNA, points to a human being. And potentiality alone is not enough to make a thing out of a non-thing. Potentially, I am a marathon runner, but I am not a marathon runner. That's why I don't see it as tragic if I'm not allowed to run a marathon because I don't have the necessary licence at a sports club, for example. The analogy may be flawed, but I consider potentiality to be a very poor argument, as is the continuity argument. Just because something has a more or less clear path ahead of it also does not mean that the non-human immediately becomes a human being. Preventing the becoming human does not seem problematic to me, as it is similar with contraception. I even consider an abortion in the first weeks comparable to contraception (think of the morning-after pill, for example) - only that it becomes more and more difficult and gradually larger and more severe measures have to be taken. However, with this I do not want to put both on the same moral level, because caution is certainly better than indulgence!

I also do not see the subsequent criteria for the beginning of human life as particularly significant. Neither nidation nor the indivisibility of the embryo seem meaningful to me - just because the embryo can no longer divide does not mean that we can also speak of an identity by inference. I also find the heart's activity unconvincing, since nowadays we also assume that death is caused by brain death and not by heart death. The heart is one organ among many, but not a decisive one that constitutes a person's identity or person (think also of xenotransplants and heart valve operations, for example). The brain is the only thing that identifies us as a person in the contemporary sense. And precisely because the formation of the brain seems to me to be important, the criterion of the formation of the cerebral cortex would make more sense for determining a person worthy of human dignity and protection. For "the cerebral cortex is considered the threshold of entry for sensory, sensitive and motor functions into consciousness"[7] and it is in the cerebral cortex that the mental images and thoughts we receive through sensory input are formed. From the 18th week of pregnancy, the cerebral cortex has its typical shape, characterised by the fissures (clefts), sulci (furrows) and gyri (turns).

However, in the end, in my opinion, an abortion should be allowed after a period of only 14 to a maximum of 16 weeks. I do not go so far in my opinion as to see abortion up to the 18th week as sensible, as the grey area here is too large for me (When is the brain actually "the brain"? How defining is the brain for being human? Etc.), but it would certainly be worth considering when the scientific findings on this are even more mature.[8] At the same time, I think that because of the impossibility of determining when a human being is a human being, an abortion is best done as early as possible in order to be as "pure of conscience" and "safest" as possible - as far as possible...

 That's why I think the Dutch regulation is too far-reaching, especially when emotional factors are taken into account. Abortions in the 20th to 24th week (5-6 months) are not to be underestimated, considering the surgical effort and the physical appearance of the foetus (looking at a photo from the womb of a 24-week-old foetus makes me queasy at the thought of killing such a living being). Apart from that, extrauterine viability may be possible as early as the 20th week. Imagine the situation where a couple gives birth to their (admittedly extreme) premature baby in the 5th month (of course with caesarean section and extreme effort) and it survives - this couple would undoubtedly speak of this premature baby as "their child", see themselves as parents and regard their child as a human being. But at the same time, in the next room, a woman might abort a child at the same stage? In my opinion, that seems grotesque.

Granted - this is a primarily emotional argument. But I can't offer a better one. Although I personally think that, compared to other people, I can perhaps make a good point. Firstly, I have children, love them and have been able to witness the development of a fertilised egg until birth. Moreover, the mother of my children has explicitly told me that she would never have an abortion (for emotional reasons), but does not condemn abortion in general. So I am given a certain point of view with different facets. Maybe that's why I have a somewhat more restrictive opinion than childless people? At the same time, I think that as a cis man with children, I am allowed to have an opinion on the topic that some extreme feminists label as a discussion of "old white men over women's bodies". Unfortunately, it's not that simple, because it's about the philosophical and social definition of when a person is a person. In principle, everyone can have a say in this - but the feelings that influence one' s view are different for everyone.

So I think I have made my opinion clear. I think it is important in the discussion to avoid black-and-white thinking, to look more deeply into the usually very dreary and emotional topic and thus to get involved in the exchange of opinions.