Abortion - Just Unintentional Killing?

Is abortion justified as nonintentional killing?

Thomson grant for the sake of argument that even if a fetus is a person from the moment of conception it does not always make abortion immoral. A fetus has a right to life but it does not involve the right to the use of a women’s body as a life support. Many abortion cases are caused by choosing not to make great sacrifices. Death is a side-effect and abortion is said to be morally right. But, if the burden of a pregnancy is not of a great sacrifice, abortion would then be immoral.

Thomson made a distinction between intentional killing and causing death as a side-effect. The difference between the two is what one wills as an end or as a means to one’s actions (intentional killing) and what one causes indirectly by one’s behavior (side- effect).

The author agreed with Thomson that not every abortion is intentional killing but he also argues that most abortions are intentional killing. And even if they are not, they are not morally justified except in the case to save the mother’s life. Author claims two ways in which one is not responsible for a child are adoption and by ensuring there is no child (through family planning, contraceptive use, etc). If there is no adoption then abortion is the way to end being responsible for the child. Hence, most cases of abortion are intentional killing.

There are two types of abortion which are not intentional killing. Firstly, if a women’s life is safe and sexual intercourse was performed voluntary, causing the child’s death as a side-effect (abortion) would not be justified as (1) it caused the child to be in a dependent state and (2) the harm inflicted onto the child is greater than the harm avoided by the mother. Secondly, if a woman’s life is safe and pregnancy is due to rape or incest (1) is not applicable. Abortion is still not justified because of (2) and by aborting the child unfairly shifts a burden to an innocent third party as the child is a biological...