ABORTION: AN UNSETTLED RELIGIOUS AND BIOETHICAL DEBATE, Papers of Religion

Download ABORTION: AN UNSETTLED RELIGIOUS AND BIOETHICAL DEBATE and more Papers Religion in PDF only on Docsity! ABORTION: AN UNSETTLED RELIGIOUS AND BIOETHICAL DEBATE Prepared for: Dr. Charbel Orfali Norte Dame University - Louaize Prepared by Siba Shazbek Firas Ghanem Nisreen AL Dibs December 13, 2022 Page | 1 ABSTRACT ABORTION: AN UNSETTLED RELIGIOUS AND BIOETHICAL DEBATE Firas Ghanem et al. December 13, 2022 Abortion means the induced termination of a pregnancy at any time within the nine months prior to childbirth. Besides being regarded as one of the most complex and polarising subjects in religion and bioethics, it is one of the most commonly applied issues that emanate from and closely relate to the theoretical discussions on the beginning of human life. Most people are on one side of this issue or the other, while some are still indecisive. Abortion is also an emotionally and politically charged topic for many people, which makes it all the more important for us to work together so as to understand why and how people differ on the topic. In this paper, we will introduce key concepts, and explore both restrictive and permissive views of abortion in the light of religion and bioethics while integrating science, philosophy, and psychology with our considered arguments and counterarguments. Through a religious lens, we will first focus in Section I on the Islamic and Christian stands on abortion. Then, in Section II, we will examine more carefully some claims regarding abortion and the responses facing them. In each case, we will be working to understand the theory that underlies it, so that we can all think more deeply about the moral issue of abortion—and better appreciate those who hold views different from our own. Page | 4 The advocates of the first group argue that human life starts very early in pregnancy at the moment of fertilization even outside the uterus, or when the fertilized egg gets implanted in the uterus. Hence, according to this position, the possibility of terminating pregnancy becomes very limited because there is a human life from day one, or even before the beginning of pregnancy (the moment of fertilization). On the contrary, the advocates of the second position argue that the beginning of human life is tied to the committed physical concept of “ensoulment”, or breathing the soul during pregnancy, which occurs much later (after 40 days according to the minority position and 120 days according to the majority position)—yet still allowing more space for abortion than the first position (Ghaly, 2012). Some early Muslim scholars would argue that before ensoulment, the parents have the option of terminating a pregnancy for whatever reason; for example if a woman is worried about her slim figure, if the married couple is not ready to be parents, etc. But since modern biomedical knowledge stresses the presence of life, or at least the potential for human life from the very moment of fertilization, the possibility for abortion must be accompanied by a religiously valid excuse—what we call in Arabic 'udhr shar'i. For example, if after 120 days meaning after ensoulment, continuing pregnancy would pose a serious threat to the mother’s life so that we have to choose between the life of the mother and that of the fetus, religious scholars agree to choose the life of the mother and not that of the fetus. This is mainly because the life of the mother is actual while that of the fetus is potential. As for before the moment of ensoulment, some reasons would have to do with the child (eg. health condition). The child for instance, if born, will be born with a serious health condition or genetic disease that would make the child’s life quite difficult; the parents’ life quite difficult; medical care would be quite expensive; the child’s expected life would be quite limited, etc. Besides, some reasons would be related to the parents, especially the mother (eg. the mother is sick or carrying a heavy psychological burden; the parents have Page | 5 difficulties at the social, financial, or economic level, etc.). Other reasons might be related to the society (eg. in cases of civil war, very poor country, absence of healthcare facilities, etc.). In these different cases, the nature of the excuse or the circumstance also differs. Again, some of these may be medical (as in the case of a child’s genetic condition or mother’s health condition) or non-medical (parents believe they have enough children, or they think they are not rich enough to get more children, or they psychologically find it very difficult to get a child at this stage of their marriage like in the aforementioned case of war…). Figure 1: A diagram illustrating the various factors/excuses that cause disagreement between contemporary pro-metaphysical religious scholars on allowing abortion Each factor in the previous complex conditions plays a role in the scholars’ judgment. And here arise most of the disagreements. Usually, based on the fatwas and studies conducted, many religious scholars would permit abortion if it is before 120 days and in serious medical conditions proved by the medical committee, not only by one physician. In cases of non-medical reasons related to the child, parents, or society, religious scholars would provide less support. Some fatwas would say, “Yes, it is okay,” but the voices supporting this are much less in number than those who would go for the medical conditions. To a certain extent, this is because those who participate in these collective and interdisciplinary discussions are usually only two groups: the biomedical scientists and the religious scholars. Page | 6 Hardly do we see social scientists, economists, or financial specialists involved. That is why when it comes to non-medical reasons, less support from the religious scholars is found. This is more or less how the two positions outlined about determining the beginning of human life would relate to the complex question of abortion in Islam (Ghaly, 2012). ABORTION IN CHRISTIANITY In The Catechism of the Catholic Church1, paragraph number 2270 states that “human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person.” Paragraph 2274 continues in the same vein: “Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.” And paragraph 2322 concludes that “from its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion . . . is a criminal practice, gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life.” In May of 1982, the Southern Baptist Convention adopted a “Resolution on Abortion and Infanticide” which contained the following phraseology: “Whereas, Both medical science and biblical references indicate that human life begins at conception, and Whereas, Southern Baptists have traditionally upheld the sanctity and worth of all human life, both born and pre- born, as being created in the image of God . . . Be it finally RESOLVED, That we support and will work for appropriate legislation and/or constitutional amendment which will prohibit abortions except to save the physical life of the mother.” 1 The Catechism of the Catholic Church (Latin: Catechismus Catholicae Ecclesiae; commonly called the Catechism or the CCC) is a catechism promulgated for the Catholic Church by Pope John Paul II in 1992. It aims to summarize, in book form, the main beliefs of the Catholic Church. Page | 9 Ensoulment in the History of Christianity Even within this one theological system, there is a wide range of opinions on the timing and causes of this phenomenon. It is crucial to emphasize that we will primarily be looking at “Christian”, not necessarily “biblical”, viewpoints when discussing the subject of “ensoulment” within the confines of Christianity. The canonical Scriptures 6 of the Christian faith, despite assertions to the contrary, do not directly address the topic of when “life” or “ensoulment” takes place. As an example: Christian pro-life activists frequently cite Psalm 139:13 as an instance verse because it expresses David's conviction that “you [God] created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb”. What does this verse, however, truly teach us? Both the overall literary style of the Psalms and the setting of this particular psalm lack a scientific orientation. The purpose of the psalmist is to worship God, and David is doing so by employing the right literary devices for a psalm—poetry, and metaphor—to make his point: that God is worthy of praise since God cares enough to know David well. Psalm 139:13 might be seen as meaning nothing more than that God sovereignly brought about David’s life, one of his closest followers and “a man after his own heart”, even if we were to take the verse literally rather than symbolically for the sake of argument (1 Samuel 13:14). The verse does not necessarily indicate that God “creates the inmost being” of every fetus in every womb; it is entirely possible that God electively chooses to “create the inmost being” of just those who, in light of his foreknowledge, will develop to full term. The chapter also does not answer the question of when such an inner-being creation happens for those for whom God does decide to do so. Jeremiah 1:5’s statement that “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you before you were born I set you apart” would serve as a good 6 The canonical scriptures may be generally described as "collection of books which form the original and authoritative written rule of the faith and practice of the Christian Church," i.e. the Old and New Testaments. Page | 10 parallel. According to some, this line demonstrates that God loves and knows fetuses while they are still within the womb. Others, however, are convinced that the passage only implies that God was aware that this specific fetus in this specific womb would grow up to be an important prophet named Jeremiah and that God, in his sovereignty, planned Jeremiah’s creation even before he was born, just as Ephesians 1:4 implies that all of God’s elect were chosen “before the creation of the world”. Pre-existentianism, Traducianism, and Creationism are three different perspectives on ensoulment that have developed throughout Christian history as a result of the ambiguity of these and other biblical passages. 1. Pre-existentianism claims that souls are already existing beings waiting for bodies to enter. This idea holds that a physical body is primarily “accidental” and very inconsequential; a person is whole without one. The concept of “souls awaiting bodies”, however, is not supported by historical canonical literature. Contrarily, a number of verses mention the physical body as a crucial component of humanity as well as the bodily manifestation of church members both now and in eternity (see, for instance, 1 Corinthians 6:15–19 and 15:35–44). 2. The doctrine of Traducianism holds that the sperm and the egg both carry the “soul” at the moment of fertilization. Automatically and instantly, the union creates a new “soul”. Since the early days of the church, traducianism has been held by at least some Christians. For instance, Tertullian (c. 160–c. 225) stated: “We allow that life begins with conception because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does”. A considerably more thorough explanation was provided by Clement of Alexandria7: 7 Titus Flavius Clemens, also known as Clement of Alexandria, was a Christian theologian and philosopher who taught at the Catechetical School of Alexandria. Among his pupils were Origen and Alexander of Jerusalem. Page | 11 The embryo is a living thing; for that the soul entering into the womb after it has been by cleansing prepared for conception, and introduced by one of the angels who preside over generation, and who knows the time for conception, moves the woman to intercourse; and that, on the seed being deposited, the spirit, which is in the seed, is, so to speak, appropriated, and is thus assumed into conjunction in the process of formation. Maximus the Confessor8 and Gregory of Nyssa9 (335–c.394) both shared the Traducianist viewpoint (c.580–662). The latter’s case was based on Christ, who had been declared to be both human and entirely divine from the first moment of his conception—indicating that he had a spiritual soul from that instant—by the Ecumenical Church10 councils. It must be true that all human beings acquire a spiritual soul at conception if, as the Bible claims, Christ was like us (humans) in all respects aside from sin. But here’s the problem: if the soul is created by the union of the parents, are they to be considered the real producers of life, and God is just an interested observer? Traducianism is fundamentally a deistic belief system because it holds that only Adam and Eve were the first to experience the beginning of life, including the soul. Since that time, only humans have had the authority to create “life” and “soul”. 3. According to the doctrine of Creationism, God creates and inserts the “soul” into a fetus at a time of his choosing, such as when a fetus takes its first breath, as was the case with Adam in Genesis 2:7, or when God, acting in his sovereignty, determines that a fetus won’t be spontaneously (meaning “naturally”) or purposefully aborted. 8 Maximus the Confessor, also spelt Maximos, otherwise known as Maximus the Theologian and Maximus of Constantinople, was a Christian monk, theologian, and scholar. 9 Gregory of Nyssa, also known as Gregory Nyssen, was Bishop of Nyssa in Cappadocia from 372 to 376 and from 378 until his death in 395. He is venerated as a saint in Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, and Lutheranism. 10 Ecumenical church: of, relating to, or representing the whole of a body of churches. : promoting or tending toward worldwide Christian unity or cooperation. Christian ecumenism can be described in terms of the three largest divisions of Christianity: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant. Page | 14 ABORTION AND BIOETHICS: RESTRICTIVE AND PERMISSIVE VIEWS INTRODUCTION This section carefully examines some arguments for and against the moral permissibility of abortion. The moral status of abortion—whether it is permissible or not—is the primary determinant of the legal status it should have (Warren, 2009, p. 140). Thus, it is important first to understand the concept of “moral status.” By definition, a living thing is said to have moral status if there are moral restrictions on killing it or using it for our own purposes, which are grounded in the nature of the creature (Jaworska & Tannenbaum, 2021). In other words, if it is wrong to kill or use the creature because of what it is, then it has moral status. Different organisms may have different levels or degrees of moral status. They might have no moral status (no restrictions on killing or using them like grass, insects, or bacteria), partial moral status (with some restrictions like elephants, dolphins, or gorillas), or full moral status (with stringent restrictions like you and other people). Now that we have a handle on the concept of moral status, we can ask what kind of moral status early human life has—and what implications these various views have for the ethics of abortion. In this section, we will consider restrictive views of abortion that are based on defending the full moral status of human embryos and the various responses facing them. We will also consider permissive views of abortion that defend a lesser moral status of early human life. FETAL LIFE AND HUMANITY It is often claimed that human life begins at fertilization with the embryo’s conception. The union of two haploid gametes, the spermatozoa and the oocyte forms a Page | 15 zygote having a complete human genotype (46 chromosomes). The zygote then undergoes development into an embryo and eventually a fetus, setting the ground to the argument that conception is the actual beginning of the human life. Taking this into consideration and supposing that all human beings have a right to life, then consequently the zygote should also have this right. In this case, no excuse can justify its denial of this right whether it be its early stage of development, its social invisibility, or even its dependence upon the woman’s body for life support (Noonan, 1970). Accordingly, the killing of the embryos and fetuses would not be justified except in the cases that would justify the killing of an older human being. After all, it’s considered a crime if parents murder their already-born children due to financial difficulties or threats to the parents’ lives or health. The same applies to fetuses and embryos when they share the same right to life. But is it true that human life begins at conception? The biological lives of the sperm and ova do not begin at conception, but they both should be alive prior to fertilization for it to occur. The egg’s development starts before the female that carries it is even born. More precisely, it begins at eight to twenty weeks after the fetus begins to grow; by the time the female is born, all the egg cells that the ovaries will produce throughout the active reproductive years of the female are already present in the ovaries. Perhaps the claim that life begins at conception means that a human individual is created at that time. Most of the cells of our body are part of an organism but not a complete human individual. However, fertilized ova are genetically unique (usually) and therefore different. They have the potential to develop into mature human beings. But are these sufficient reasons for regarding them as human beings? Based on empirical evidence, the idea that a human being is created at conception can be disputed. According to Ford (1988), some bioethicists believe that the early embryo can be distinguished from the embryo that develops later because, for the first two weeks or so, it is made up of a collection of undifferentiated Page | 16 cells, each of which has the potential to develop into a full embryo in certain circumstances. The early embryo has several possible outcomes: it can spontaneously separate into twins or triplets, or it can merge with another embryo to form a single embryo with a mosaic of genetic features. As a result, the early embryo is not yet a distinct human being. This argument is relevant to abortion even though most induced abortions take place more than 14 days after conception because some people argue that the hormonal contraceptives (such as the morning-after pill) prevent pregnancy by blocking fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus. Some researchers claim that this is not the case, but even if it were, the main arguments against abortion do not apply in this situation since a human embryo does not become an individual until two weeks after conception. However, when it comes to more developed fetuses and embryos, they are supposedly human individuals. This gives rise to another specific question: do all human individuals have a right to life? It is not obvious whether they do or not. Particularly in their earlier stages, there may be morally significant differences between human embryos and fetuses and more developed humans. A fetus has a face, hands, feet, and other physically distinguishable human traits by the end of the first trimester; therefore, there are indeed numerous physical similarities between them and newborns. Since it appears to be a thinking and feeling being, it is simple to assume that it is; but appearances can be deceiving. Until the latter half of the second trimester, fetuses highly likely lack the neurophysiological components and capabilities required for the occurrence of pain and other conscious experiences, as well as for thought, self-awareness, and other mental activity (Burgess & Tawia, 1996). And it is almost probable that these structures and functions have not yet developed in first-trimester fetuses. As a result, they are incapable of feeling hurt, unhappy, or losing whatever they cherish, want, or enjoy. They are physiologically alive, but they lack what James Rachels Page | 19 odd to claim that the ovum develops the capacity to give birth to a human being only after being fertilized. Accordingly, not only would abortion be morally wrong if potential human beings have a right to life, but also it would be wrong to prevent ovum fertilization through contraceptive use or deliberate sex avoidance when conception is possible. To reject these extreme conclusions requires us to reject the idea that all potential human beings have a right to life in the first place (Warren, 2009, p. 144–145). Rejecting this idea, however, does not imply that potential human beings do not have value. The embryo or fetus will be greatly valued in the cases of wanted pregnancy. However, the value of the embryo or fetus as a potential human being may be outweighed by the needs of actual human beings if the pregnancy is unwanted or medically risky, or if the fetus is abnormal in ways that make long-term survival impossible. Not all potential human beings can biologically become actual humans. According to human reproductive biology, the vast majority of human ova do not become zygotes; and it is possible that most zygotes never develop into viable embryos (Grobstein, 1988). It is advantageous that this is the case because women have limited capacity to bear and raise children just as Earth has limited capacity to support more human beings. ABORTION AND FETAL DEVELOPMENT According to the argument presented so far, neither the biological humanity and aliveness of the early fetus, nor its potential to become a human being, soundly justifies granting the fetus the right to life. But as pregnancy goes on, it gets harder to think of the fetus as nothing more than a potential human being. Not only does it start to resemble a baby more, but it also likely starts to exhibit a primitive consciousness form at some point before birth. For first-trimester and early second-trimester fetuses, it is reasonably certain that they are not sentient as neither the sense organs nor the areas of the brain required for processing Page | 20 sensory information (including the cerebral cortex) are sufficiently developed. Although there have been reports of electrical activity in the cerebral cortex as early as 20 weeks of gestation, the more organized patterns of electrical activity that are typical of waking and dreaming states do not seem to appear until about 30 weeks (Burgess & Tawia, 1996, p. 23). Accordingly, it appears very likely that sentience begins either in the late second or the third trimester of pregnancy. Perhaps one justification for regarding early abortion as morally preferable to late abortion is the possibility for sentience in the later stages of fetal development. Now, you may be wondering whether this claim does or does not imply that killing sentient or possibly sentient animals of other species for food or for other human uses is morally problematic as well. In our opinion, it does. It is morally wrong to kill sentient or possibly sentient beings because it robs them of lives that they may have been consciously enjoying. While it is not always wrong, it does need to be justified in terms of a real need, such as for survival or self- defense (Warren, 2009, p. 145–146). Besides, early abortions are preferred to late ones because they are medically less harmful to the woman’s health, and emotionally less traumatic to her and to those around her. The majority of women are aware of these differences, and so most abortions take place well before the end of the second trimester in areas where safe abortion is available. Abortions after 20 weeks are only performed in less than 2% of cases in the US (Technical issues in reproductive health, 2007). Sometimes, however, late abortions can be justifiable given the circumstances. These are typically done since the fetus has a fatal abnormality, like anencephaly (the absence of all or most of the brain), that ensures a stillborn baby or its death shortly after birth (Warren, 2009, p. 146). Page | 21 UNSAFE ABORTION Some people doubt the right to life of fetuses, yet remain uneasy about an “abortion on demand” approach. They assume that if abortions are easy to get, many will be done for immoral reasons. As a result, they support making abortions difficult to obtain; for instance, by only allowing it when the mother’s life is at high risk or in cases of severe economic or personal hardship. They may also support requiring the woman to undergo counseling aimed at altering her opinion, mandating a waiting time before the abortion can be carried out, or demanding the approval of the woman’s parents—if she is a legal minor—or the father of the fetus. However, evidence proves that limiting access to abortions does not decrease the number of abortions. In fact, women and girls still need abortions regardless of whether it is legal or not. According to the Amnesty International, the abortion rate is 34 per 1000 people in countries that broadly permit abortion, compared to 37 per 1000 people in countries where abortion is either completely outlawed or permitted only when necessary to save a woman’s life—a difference that is not very significant (Key facts on abortion, 2022). This clearly shows that banning or restricting abortions does not lower the number of abortions; it only drives them to seek unsafe abortions. According to the World Health Organization (Abortion, 2021), “unsafe abortion is a procedure for terminating an unintended pregnancy carried out either by persons lacking the necessary skills or in an environment that does not conform to minimal medical standards or both.” Estimates from 2010 to 2014 show that 45% of all induced abortions worldwide are unsafe. One-third of all unsafe abortions were carried out under the least safe circumstances, i.e., by untrained individuals utilizing risky and invasive procedures. 97% of all unsafe abortions occur in developing nations. When performed by a qualified health care provider in sanitary conditions, abortions are considered to be one of the safest medical procedures, even safer than childbirth. Page | 24 seeking an abortion is a survivor of trauma, no matter what their circumstances might be, their decision is an act of bodily autonomy and should not be judged nor infringed upon” (Centering bodily autonomy in conversations about abortion, 2022). Those who disagree with this argument frequently criticize the notion that a fetus is a “part” of a woman’s body. They claim that a fetus is not similar to a leg or a liver in that it is (to some extent) a separate “person” with its own right to life and is not simply a part of the mother’s body. International legal support for a woman’s right to safe and legal abortion can be found in numerous international treaties such as the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, and the “European Convention on Human Rights”. The right to choose abortion has support in guarantees of life and health, freedom from discrimination, and autonomy in reproductive decision-making. Laws that oblige women to undergo unsafe abortions threaten women’s right to life— aright that is protected by multiple human rights instruments—since as mentioned previously in this paper, unsafe abortions are life-threatening and are associated with high rates of maternal mortality. Although the phrase “right to life” has been linked to anti-abortion efforts, it has not been interpreted in any international setting to require restrictions on abortion. Moreover, international law guarantees women’s right to “the highest attainable standard of health”. Unsafe abortions cause serious harm to women’s health such as long-term disabilities in cases that do not result in death. Thus, safe abortion services protect women’s right to health. This right to health can be interpreted to require governments to take appropriate measures to ensure that women are not exposed to the risks of unsafe abortion. Such measures include removing legal restrictions on abortion and ensuring access to high-quality abortion services. Women’s rights activists also believe that denying access to abortion is a form of gender discrimination. In fact, laws that prohibit abortions serve the discriminatory purpose of demeaning and diminishing women’s capacity to make responsible decisions about their bodies and lives. “Governments may find the Page | 25 potential consequences of allowing women to make such decisions threatening in some circumstances. Recognizing women’s sexual and reproductive autonomy contradicts long- standing social norms that render women subordinate to men in their families and communities. It is not surprising that unwillingness to allow women to make decisions about their own bodies often coincides with the tendency to deny women decision-making roles in the areas of political, economic, social, and cultural affairs” (Safe and legal abortion is a woman’s human right, 2004). PSYCHOLOGICAL DIMENSIONS BEYOND ABORTION Supporting the ban on abortions usually stems from the idea of protecting the child and his right to life. But shouldn’t we also think about the life he/she will have once born? Well, unwanted children face long-term difficulties in different aspects. Let us explore how and why. The bond between a mother and her child nurtures the emotional and social development of the child and lays the foundation for the kid’s personality, life choices, and overall behavior. “The first relationship with the primary caretaker becomes the child’s role model. A mom needs to be present physically and emotionally with a baby from the time it is young” (Foster, 2012). A woman forced into motherhood might neither be able to meet the emotional needs of her child nor be able to form a deep connection with him/her nor offer him/her the love every baby deserves. Emotional neglect affects children negatively in a severe way: when toddlers are born, they have no sense of self. Their sense of self is completely entangled with their parents. As they grow up, they start to develop a separate sense of self, also referred to as “ego”, and how they connect with their parents during this time has a big impact on the kind of ego they end up with. “Mothers tend to be the primary caregivers, and if children don’t feel loved, they internalize that and feel unlovable. They wonder what is wrong with them, that their mothers cannot love them. It is something they carry through the rest of Page | 26 their lives” (Foster, 2021). Young children frequently assume that their parents do not commit any mistakes, thus if anything goes wrong, it is their fault. This is due to the fact that infants are completely dependent on their parents for care, affection, and food. “Given that children look to their parents and caregivers for a sense of who they are, parents who do not show their children genuine, unconditional love tend to create lasting harm to their children’s sense of self” (Mandriota, 2021). Clinical psychologist Carla Marie Manly states that a damaged ego commonly develops when kids feel unloved, unwanted, neglected, or continuously criticized, and it induces feelings of being “unworthy” and “not good enough”. When a person’s sense of self is distorted in his/her earlier years, it persists into adulthood and has an impact on how he/she behaves (Mandriota, 2021). An unloving childhood could have other effects. A 2018 study suggests that attachment theory can aid in our understanding of how our formative relationships as infants may affect our relationships as adults. “When a person’s first attachment experience is being unloved, this can create difficulty in closeness and intimacy, creating continuous feelings of anxiety and avoidance of creating deep meaningful relationships as an adult” (Mandriota, 2021). According to Collins (2021), an insecure attachment style stemming from an unloving childhood can consequently impact how a person communicates his/her emotions and needs, how he/she self- regulates, and how he/she understands the emotions and needs of his/her partner. Another common repercussion of growing up with an unloving mother is having trust issues. “Children who are not raised in safe, loving, respectful, and consistent environments tend to grow up feeling very unsafe and untrusting, as a result, they tend to experience challenges in trusting themselves and others throughout life” (Mandriota, 2021). Additionally, researchers propose that the emotional neglect of children may have long-term effects on their mental health. According to a 2016 study, some mental health issues that might result from emotional Page | 29 CONCLUSION Abortion is often chosen by women for compelling reasons—reasons that are sufficient to justify killing a presentient embryo or fetus. Late abortion is morally more problematic and thus less desirable when women have the option of an early abortion. However, in some circumstances, such as when the woman’s life or health is in grave danger or the fetus is dreadfully abnormal, a late abortion may be justified. The fact that abortion is, at best, an unpleasant experience that gravely troubles many people leads us to the legitimate societal target of reducing the number of abortions. It is necessary, however, to respect women’s autonomy and well-being and hence achieve this reduction through women empowerment and sex education to avoid unwanted pregnancies, rather than through laws or regulatory practices that make it more challenging to access safe abortion. Page | 30 REFERENCES Abortion. (2021, November 25). World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/news- room/fact-sheets/detail/abortion Burgess, J. A., & Tawia, S. A. (1996). When did you first begin to feel it? Locating the beginning of human consciousness. Bioethics, 10(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.1996.tb00100.x Centering bodily autonomy in conversations about abortion. (2022, September 13). NJCASA. https://njcasa.org/news/centering-bodily-autonomy/ Ford, N. (1988). When Did I Begin? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/when-did-i-begin/E0DDCBB4A288 C8D18EC09D5DE13D3178 Foster, V. (2012). Why mom’s love is so important. Connecticut Post. Healthy Life. https://www.ctpost.com/home/article/Why-Mom-s-Love-Is-So-Important- 4000185.php Ghaly, M. (2012). The beginning of human life: Islamic bioethical perspectives. Zygon® Journal of Religion and Science, 47(1), 175–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 9744.2011.01245.x Grobstein, C. (1988). Science and the unborn (1st ed.). Basic Books. Jaworska, A., & Tannenbaum, J. (2021, March 3). The grounds of moral status (E. Zalta, Ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/ spr2021/entries/grounds-moral-status/ Key facts on abortion. (2022, October 31). Amnesty International. https://www.amnesty. org/en/what-we-do/sexual-and-reproductive-rights/abortion-facts/ Page | 31 Mandriota, M. (2021, October 19). How being unloved in childhood may affect you as an adult. Psych Central. https://psychcentral.com/health/unloved-in-childhood-common- effects-on-your-adult-self Marquis, D. (1989). Why abortion is immoral. The Journal of Philosophy, 86(4), 183–202. https://doi.org/10.2307/2026961 Noonan, J., Jr (1970). An almost absolute value in history. In John Noonan, Jr (ed.), The Morality of Abortion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 51– 9. (Reprinted in T. Beauchamp & L. Walters (eds.), Contemporary issues in bioethics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1994, pp. 279 – 82.) Poston, L. (2010, January 4). When does human life begin? Conception and ensoulment. Messiah University. https://mosaic.messiah.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article= 1006&context=brs_ed Rachels, J. (1990). Created from animals: The moral implications of darwinism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/created-from- animals-9780192861290?cc=us&lang=en& Safe and legal abortion is a woman’s human right. (2004). Center for reproductive rights. https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Safe-and-Legal-Abortion- is-a-Womans-Human-Right.pdf Sonnenberg, K. (2019, February 14). Sonnenberg: Pro-life and pro-women. The Daily Utah Chronicle. https://dailyutahchronicle.com/2019/02/14/sonnenberg-pro-life-feminism- at-the-womens-march/ Squires, S. (1989, August 15). Unwanted children suffer long-term difficulties. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/wellness/1989/08/15/unwant ed-children-suffer-long-term-difficulties/6a372d81-bcab-4752-94a2-99d07e7e46b0/