On Abortion without Anger and Dogma

Abstract

The controversy about the permissibility of abortion is sustained by the conflicting claims about the status of the human being considered as a person and constituting a part of a human moral community which observes certain norms with respect to humans, the essential of which is the prohibition of killing a fellow human being. Proponents of the rigorous position hold that (1) in case of uncertainty every specimen of the human species is to be treated as absolutely entitled to uninterrupted biological existence (in dubio pro vita); (2) a human organism becomes a person and a member of a moral community from the moment when a human egg is impregnated by sperm; (3) every instance of deliberate destruction of a human embryo is to be interpreted as an inexcusable manslaughter. Proponents of the liberal position hold that (1) no legal solutions should be imposed that are not supported by a consensus of opinion (in dubiis libertas); (2) a human organism becomes a member of a moral community at the moment of its birth; (3) the cases of termination of life of non-persons should be treated comparably to the killing of other non–persons, i.e. by taking into account the hierarchy of beings and the motives of the agent. Unfortunately, the controversy about permissibility of abortion does not usually include any reference to the position of the silent minority which seems to believe that (1) a human organism becomes a member of a moral community when its central nervous system assumes its functions, i.e. approximately in the 12th week of pregnancy; (2) a human organism that does not yet possess the status of a person should be assigned a special status that is higher than the status of an animal but not equivalent to the status of a person, which must result in the acceptance of termination of life of a human fetus for serious reasons.