This blog post examines the legitimacy of abortion prohibition laws, focusing on whether the fetus’s right to life or the mother’s right to self-determination should be prioritized.
In October 2016, South Korea’s Ministry of Health and Welfare announced a revision to administrative rules suspending the licenses of medical practitioners who perform illegal abortions for up to 12 months. However, due to significant backlash from the medical community, including the Obstetrics and Gynecology Association, the implementation of the amendment was provisionally postponed. Amidst the conflict between the government and the medical community over the abortion ban law, public opinion among ordinary citizens is also divided. Those who support the fetus’s right to life and ethical values favor the abortion ban, while those who consider the mother’s right to choose and social realities argue that the current abortion ban law is unjust.
In fact, the pro-choice/pro-life debate began in earnest in 2010 when the Pro-Life Medical Association filed charges against doctors performing illegal abortions. After various proceedings, the Constitutional Court ruled the current abortion ban constitutional in a 2012 constitutional petition. However, as of 2016, the controversy surrounding the abortion ban remains heated. While arguments on both sides clash sharply in the abortion debate, examining the essence reveals a clear answer. The right to life is paramount and cannot be infringed upon by others. Therefore, the abortion ban is valid, and abortion should be prohibited.
Premise 1: Taking the life of an innocent living person is wrong.
Premise 2: The fetus is an innocent living person.
Conclusion: Taking the life of a fetus is wrong.
First, the fetus is a living being and therefore possesses the right to life. Most people readily agree with Premise 1. Therefore, if one agrees that a fetus is a living person, then by the syllogism above, abortion should naturally be prohibited. So, is a fetus truly a living person? This question is similar to asking when we should recognize a fetus as a person. Those who support abortion view a fetus as a person only from the moment of birth, and thus argue that abortion is not murder. Furthermore, from a legal standpoint, countries that permit abortion generally set the 24-week mark as the threshold for allowing it.
However, even those who support abortion cannot clearly answer questions like, “Is the fetus truly not a person before birth?” or “Should a fetus before 24 weeks of pregnancy be viewed as a lifeless mass of cells?” From an existentialist perspective, the fetus in the mother’s womb just before birth and the baby born after delivery are the same individual. Since life is not conferred upon the fetus the moment it is born, it is unreasonable to view birth as the criterion for acquiring life and personhood. Therefore, if we consider the born baby a living person, it is wrong to deny the fetus personhood simply because it is in the mother’s womb.
Then, is it reasonable for countries permitting abortion and for our Maternal and Child Health Act to deem a fetus before 24 weeks of gestation as not a living person under the provisions allowing exceptions? Before answering this, let us return to the initial question posed: “When do we begin to regard a fetus as a person?” While society has yet to reach a consensus on the definition of life’s beginning, Peter Singer of Princeton University proposed that a human embryo is essentially the same individual after the 8-cell stage. Philosophers, including Peter Singer, agree with the philosophical reasoning that an embryo after the 8-cell stage—when no new individuals, such as twins, are formed—is essentially identical to the baby that will be born. While it is difficult to clearly define the exact moment of life’s beginning based on this philosophical reasoning, I also believe that an implanted embryo at 5-6 weeks, well past the 8-cell stage, is essentially the same individual as a fetus at birth.
If we unequivocally recognize a newborn baby as a living individual possessing human status, then it is right to view an embryo implanted beyond the 8-cell stage—an entity essentially identical—as life. Of course, one might oppose viewing it as living life even if its identity as an individual is established. However, I find defining life in terms of its continuity more valid than defining it at a specific developmental milestone like 24 weeks. The argument that a fetus suddenly becomes a living being at 24 weeks of pregnancy lacks persuasiveness.
Furthermore, the mother’s right to choose cannot rationalize abortion. The mother’s right to choose is a concept that opposes the fetus’s right to life in the abortion debate, based on the idea that since the mother is the agent deciding on pregnancy and childbirth, the continuation of the pregnancy depends on her choice. In modern society, individual freedom is considered a right that must be guaranteed above all else. Therefore, we cannot infringe upon an individual’s privacy, nor can we regulate an individual’s sexual relations to prevent abortion. However, the prerequisite for guaranteeing this individual freedom is that it does not infringe upon the rights of others. While the mother’s right to choose is essential to guarantee individual freedom, it cannot be protected if it infringes upon the fetus’s right to life.
Just as it is wrong to take another’s life for our own freedom, it is wrong to deprive a fetus of life for the mother’s freedom. Pro-choice advocates may argue that because the fetus resides within the mother’s womb, it lacks fully independent status and is a dependent part of the mother. However, the fetus is clearly alive and, in most cases, has a very high probability of developing into an independent individual. Just as parents possess significant authority over their minor children but cannot arbitrarily dispose of their lives, it is wrong for a mother to possess the right to decide the life of her fetus solely by virtue of being the mother. Therefore, the fetus’s right to life must be protected and should take precedence over the mother’s right to self-determination.
Finally, unavoidable circumstances do not justify abortion. Current abortion prohibition laws fundamentally ban the procedure but partially permit it under exceptional circumstances. Pro-abortion advocates argue that existing laws allow only a narrow range of abortions, failing to consider reality and thus failing to protect mothers from unavoidable pregnancies. However, analysis of actual abortion cases reveals that unavoidable situations and exceptional cases are extremely rare. According to the Ministry of Health and Welfare’s 2010 statistics on abortion procedures, out of 160,000 total abortions, only 5% were due to unavoidable circumstances such as rape, sexual assault, or fatal abnormalities threatening the health of the mother or fetus. The remaining 95% of procedures were performed in non-unavoidable situations, violating the current law.
One might argue that situations like a minor’s pregnancy, an unmarried mother’s pregnancy, birth planning, or economic factors are unavoidable circumstances beyond the limited exceptions defined by law. However, these situations are not unavoidable; they are part of the inevitable consequences resulting from personal choices. Contraception is an effective method to prevent unwanted pregnancies. To prevent pregnancies among minors or unwanted pregnancies among the younger generation, a fundamental approach involving contraception education and sex education is necessary, not permitting abortion, which deprives the fetus of life.
Choosing not to use contraception for free sexual relations or sexual pleasure may be an individual’s freedom. However, individual freedom must be accompanied by appropriate responsibility. In actual abortion cases, many people knew about contraceptive methods but failed to use them due to laziness or complacency, leading to pregnancy. The most reliable way to prevent unwanted pregnancies is not easy abortion, but a responsible attitude with a sense of vigilance towards life.
The issue of permitting abortion for genetic abnormalities through early fetal diagnosis may be more controversial. This falls under the exception clause of the Maternal and Child Health Act, representing a point where the value of the fetus’s life conflicts with the value of the quality of life. However, just as the lives of people with disabilities or carriers of genetic diseases are equally precious as those of able-bodied individuals, it is not right to unconditionally support abortion simply based on the presence or absence of a disability. While further discussion on such exceptions is necessary, most abortion situations can be characterized as circumstances requiring responsibility for freedom, not unavoidable circumstances.
In conclusion, abortion should be prohibited to protect the fetus’s right to life. Pro-abortion advocates emphasize the necessity of abortion based on practical problems, but contrary to their claims, not all unwed mothers choose abortion. Furthermore, survey results indicate that most unwed mothers who gave birth do not regret their decision. This demonstrates that what matters is not the situation itself, but recognizing the preciousness of life and the will and perspective to overcome it. Therefore, practical problems must be addressed through improving public awareness and social systems. Banning abortion ensures precious life is not discarded and instead grows into a healthy member of society.
