Psychology

Across the board, different authorities seek to settle for a common ground on the issue of abortion. This is mainly between pro-lifers and pro-abortionists. In deed, both camps have got very valid arguments such that it is not easy to make a fair judgment between them. However, basing their arguments on fundamental moral principles, one would take sides. Theories on the sources of morality, for this matter, can help in deepening the understanding on the intricacies of abortion. The three sources are the act in itself must be good the intention must be good and lastly the circumstances must be good and favorable. All the three conditions must be kept constant such that qualification of one of them is not enough. The principle of double effect, on the other hand, re-emphasizes the elements of the sources of morality mentioned above. Morality is full of relativistic conditions, not excluding abortion. As such, abortion is a controversial issue due to its pluralistic nature. In such a situation it is never easy to settle for a common ground. Law should always adhere to the supreme moral structures since any law devoid of this is null and void and with no substance. Therefore, in this paper, there is an attempt in giving a synthesis on abortion and mainly basing on fundamental moral principles.

Introduction
Should abortion be legal This is a question that is been greatly considered all over the world. Different opinions have been advanced right from the clerics, politicians, and moralists just to mention a few. It is in deed a tag of war with no absolute judgments or absolute conclusions. Again, abortion is a moral issue with so many ethical theories in place and with different moral interpretations. Due to this, the debate about abortion continues to be subjected to relativistic approaches and in such circumstances it is very hard to settle for a common ground. This study therefore, attempts to attain a common ground by comparing the yes for abortion and the no for abortion.  In this respect, the thesis shall contain the yes for abortion and the anti-thesis shall contain the no for abortion. Eventually, a synthesis shall be developed that will critically analyze both aspects basing on fundamental principles of morality and legality. To reiterate, the synthesis shall deduce from fundamental moral and legal principles.

Therefore, ethical theories such as Moral Objectivism Divine Command Moral Subjectivism Relativism Utilitarianism and Consequentialism to mention a few shall be considered. Contemporary examples and case studies will also be incorporated in the study. In general, the study aims at confirming that abortion is illegal and further to that unacceptable no matter the circumstances.

Pro-Abortion Campaign
As stated earlier, abortion as a moral issue has got diverse approaches. In other words, people view it from different moral standpoints. In this regard, a majority of people are of the opinion that abortion is acceptable and justified. Convictions dominate in the pro-choice system of thought. They frown at any attempts that seek to de-legalize abortion. In fact, the arguments advanced in defense of abortion are very strong and valid, very convincing arguments. For instance, like the case of a young girl who decides to undergo an abortion for the sake of her education or a medical doctor who decides to carry out an abortion for the sake of saving the mothers life. In deed, considering the circumstances that the young girl or the mother whose life is in danger are in, a right thinking person would allude to the decisions made in each case. Largely, couples or ladies go for abortion as a major solution to practical problems or better still, as the better option in solving their crisis as a result of unwilled pregnancy.

Considering that the number of couples is raising everyday then it is expected that the inclination to sexual intercourse is also on the rise. Such situations may lead couples in getting untimely or unplanned pregnancies. It is true that a couple can engage in sexual intercourse with no intention at all of getting a baby. Could be that they are not ready for it or it could be that they are not economically stable or other circumstances of this kind. Societal norms or customary practices add a lot of influence on how couples may deal with unplanned pregnancies. For example, when a fianc has not yet proposed to the fiance through proper preparations with the parents and say a Christian wedding. The fianc will feel that his reputation in the community may deteriorate. What is left for him is contemplation of how he can safeguard his reputation in the society therefore, by dealing with the pregnancy in its very early stages becomes the better option. Here, the only option is abortion getting rid of the pregnancy without looking back. See that, the fianc has dissuaded his fiance into abortion for the sake of their reputation and lowering their chances of getting into a financial mess.  The end qualifies the means used Moreover, a majority of families are very serious in controlling not only the size of their family but also the timing and the range-period between one child to the next. Some couples wish that their children space-out with a range of two years or three or ten and so on and so fourth. It is clear that if they happen to get children contrary to their plan as illustrated above, the next and better option would be abortion. Again, getting rid of the unwanted pregnancy in its very early stages so that they can safeguard their marital interests and aspirations becomes the way forward.

It is important to note that the issue of abortion varies from one continent to the next from one country to the next from one region to the next and from one individual to the next. As noted earlier, abortion is a discussion with so many opinions and different opinion shapers just like a conference hall with different delegates with different opinions. Such a situation is rather chaotic as no common ground is arrived at.  Legality of abortion does not derive more from the legal structure of a given state but depends largely on whether they are situated in developed countries or developing countries. For example, the understanding of abortion for a woman in the United States is different from the understanding of a woman in Ethiopia or Botswana. The following charts are a representation of the case of abortion in different countries especially in the context of developed countries and developing countries. The developed countries cover the entire Europe, Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand and the United States developing countries are signified by the rest.

Fig. 1 Source (Alan Guttmacher Institute, 1999, pp. 21-22)
From the above figure it can be argued and justifiably so that abortion is justified since the end in mind is for the good of the mother or woman. It is practiced so that some thing good may be achieved. To echo what had been stated above, the end justifies the means

Fig.2 below is a survey in the U.S. in regard to the rate of abortion and its trends in the years 1960-2005. The survey takes into account estimated or identified legal abortions in the United States ratio of abortion in every 1000 live births percentage of abortions in every total pregnancies, that is, births plus abortions ratings per 1000 females between 15-44 years and ratings per 1000 population. Also take note that the data is scaled in relation to 1990 whose value is equal to 100.

Rates of Abortion in the United States in the period 1960-2005

Fig. 2, Source (Johnston, R. 2008)
Turning now to U.S President, Barrack Obama and his view on abortion, it is believed that he is more of a pro-choice than a pro-life. However, he has been careful in this issue and the most laudable thing is that he recognizes the moral principles in it. According to President Obama, establishing the beginning of life is not an easy task. It is not easy to determine whether it begins at conception or at birth. He, however, believes that there is more about potential life and more importantly the moral intricacies involved. He states categorically that the moral dimension of it must be taken into account whenever such debates are advanced (Democratic Compassion Forum, 2008). In his other remarks, he states that the mother cannot be barred from making a choice to abort her child (Jerome Corsi, 2008). There should be a provision safeguarding the health of the mother (Presidential Series, 2008).

In general, it can be noted that abortion derives its justification from convincing reasons, very convincing and practical reasons. Surely, looking at a case whereby a pregnancy is terminated for the sake of saving a mothers life is rather appealing. In addition, looking at abortion as an act committed for the good of the subject not only appeals but is a rule of life. Again, the intention of the mother or the doctor is good because it seeks to realize a certain good here the doctor or the mother is said to act with non animo nocendi meaning with no malicious motive to harm. To reiterate, the intention of the subject to abortion is good

Pro-Life approach to Abortion
As stated above, the topic on abortion takes different shapes from one school of thought to the next. It happens to be one of the social issues with no possibility for a common ground. Just as how there are many arguments for abortion so are there arguments against abortion, and in deed very convincing arguments. In fact, if one acts as a judge between a pro-choice and a pro-life she would end up declaring both correct. Just as how there are many arguments for abortion so are there arguments against abortion, and in deed very convincing arguments. In fact, if one acts as a judge between a pro-choice and a pro-life she would end up declaring both correct.

Life begins at conception In Latin it is said that nasciturus pro jam nato habetur, meaning that one still to be born is considered already born. Therefore, abortion undermines the sanctity of life and for this matter it warrants no moral justification whatever the circumstances. In any civilized society, malicious intention to harm the life of another person without punishment is not acceptable, not excluding abortion. This is contrary to what most pro-abortionists believe in that life begins at birth.
People think that the impact of legalizing abortion narrows only to few individuals for instance, the mothers or women or couples, mention them. Its effects adversely affect the economic framework of a given society especially considering the economic future trends. Its adverse effects on the economy may not be realized immediately, but gradually and eventually they start appearing. For every aborted European and American, it deprives their economy of an amount equal to  1 5000 000. On average, an American or European spends over  1 177 000 in meeting the basic needs. She gets to pay a tax fee of over  440 000. Even though the doctor gets paid for carrying out the practice evidently other sectors are affected.  

As indicated above, the arguments advanced by pro-abortionists are not only strong but valid and in deed very convincing arguments. However, it is important to note that in every reasoning process and particularly syllogistic reasoning, validity and soundness are very distinct as well as strength and cogency (Copi, I.M.  Cohen, C. (1999). So, when an argument is said to have valid judgments or strong judgments it is not the same as saying it is a sound argument or cogent argument. In this regard, an argument should not only be valid but also sound since it should possess true premises. On the other hand, an argument should not only be strong but also cogent again because it should draw from true premises (Kryche, J.R. 1970). Consider this argument

All women in U.S. believe that abortion should be legalized in a bid to safe a mothers life.

United States has got a population of 3,000,000 women

Therefore, the 3,000,000 women believe that abortion should be legalized in a bid to safe a mothers life.
Looking at this argument, no doubt that the conclusion necessarily draws from the premises with mathematical certainty and without the fear of contradiction and such an argument is valid. The next step is to establish its soundness. It cannot be true that all women in the U.S. support abortion whatever the circumstances and therefore such an argument is not a sound argument, period. Such an argument actually alludes to the fallacy of division where what is said of the whole is said of the parts.
Relativism simply is when one party defends hisher position on the mere fact that what is true to himher is so and what is true to the other is so. It is important therefore, to note that relativism is logically untenable. It is a fallacy or better still, an error in reasoning In this sense, debates in abortion inclined towards relativism can and to a large extent are considered as debates with no logical basis.

Evidently, pro-choice solemnly support abortion if and only if it is for the well-being of the mother. For example, in the case where a mothers life is in danger and by the way it is a principle in law that necessitas non-habet legem which means that necessity knows no law. In practical terms, in a critical situation where a serious consequence involving ones life for example, a mothers life is in danger, the law may be ignored. Hence, the famous phrase, the end justifies the means This belief also features in the utilitarianism or consequentialism standpoint on ethics or morality in that man,s actions are justified if they are useful for himher (Flugel, J.C., 1945).

On the contrary, there are certain principles to be considered as far a morality is concerned. In line with this, morality has got three sources namely the act itself the intention of the act and the circumstances. These three sources, therefore, become the frame within which morality is determined in all human acts, not excluding abortion. Remember that the three aspects must be morally good at all times. That is, the act must be inherently good, the intention must be inherently good and the circumstances must be good and favorable. And, to consider one of the aspects living out the rest is morally wrong, period
Therefore, the Latin maxim acting with non animo nocendi to mean with no malicious intention has no moral justification. A person, who commits abortion because she wants to save her life or a couple that gets rid of an unwanted pregnancy as illustrated above, is morally wrong. Yes, the intention is good, very good in deed, but the act of abortion is inherently evil together with the circumstances.  The point here is that the consideration given by the doctors is only the intention and somewhat the circumstances in the case of a mother whose life is in danger living out the act of abortion. So what the pro-abortionists do not know is that they involve themselves in a moral contradiction and further to that, fail to give a phenomenological reflection on abortion per se.

The perception that abortion is viewed differently form developed countries compared to developing countries is rather misguided. This is because there are universal principles in morality that are acceptable globally. This universality of fundamental moral principles is what guides United Nations today in its quest to establish a common framework among nations like in the case of International Law Courts. To reiterate, this is a demonstration that UN as an institution recognizes universality of morality and due process of the law that cannot be limited to developed countries or developing countries. In this light, abortion can be approached from a common ground among states and still it is possible to settle for common policies across the international realm concerning abortion.

A Synthesis of Pro-Choice vis a vis Pro-Life
In morality, it is said that virtue is in the middle. This compares to the  Latin expression which states that in medio stat virtus literally translated that virtue is to be found in the middle. It is a caution to avoid extremes or extreme positions. Therefore it is possible to find a balance between pro-choice and pro-life. This is only possible if both camps consider the moral dimensions to abortion. It was stated earlier long that abortion is a moral issue therefore, its legal dimensions must conform to the moral dimensions and not the vice-versa. Logically to assert that all laws must be in conformity with morality is not equivalent to the assertion that all morality must be in conformity with laws or legality. Note the conversion of statements as indicated above. In simpler terms, to affirm that all s is p is not logically the same as to say all p is s.  Therefore, any law legalizing abortion should adhere to the generally accepted definition of law.

Law is an ordinance of reason for the common good, decreed by the authorities in charge of the community. The natural law should be the basis for civil law (Aquinas, T. 2008). John Hittenger states, The natural law is a participation in the wisdom and goodness of God by the human person, formed in the image of the creator. The natural law expresses the dignity of the person and forms the basis of human rights and fundamental duties. John Hittenger (2008) states, The natural law is a participation in the wisdom and goodness of God by the human person, formed in the image of the creator. The natural law expresses the dignity of the person and forms the basis of human rights and fundamental duties. Therefore, whenever lawmakers seek to legalize abortion, they should compare notes with Aquinas assertion and John Hittenger. On the other hand, as noted earlier necessity knows no law. Therefore, in those circumstances that the life of the mother is in danger, doctors should do what in their discretion is appropriate to safe her life. Well, it could be that the only option is termination of the pregnancy hence killing the fetus.

The act must never be intrinsically evil. It must symbolize ones deep commitment and identification with God and neighbor including the person himself the undesired effects should never be directly intended. The agent must avoid the undesired effects as much as possible the beneficial effects must not be as a result of the evil act. Or better still the desired results should never derive from the bad course of action the desired results must be proportionate to the harmful effects and finally the desired effects must follow from the harmful effects immediately and simultaneously (Ashley, B.  ORourke, K. 1997, PP.191-195).

In the light of the principle of double effect, abundant caution should be exercised in cases where abortion is carried out in the case when a mothers life is in danger. First and foremost, doctors and all moralists should consider abortion in itself as an act. This calls to mind what was observed earlier long that pro-choice need to give a phenomenological reflection on abortion per se. Abortion involves the termination of a pregnancy and consequently the death of the embryo or fetus (Merriam Webster, 2010). Clearly, abortion is intrinsically evil. Termination of a pregnancy is morally evil especially if all factors remain constant. Therefore, when pro-choice argue that abortion is permissible when the life of the mother is at stake, they engage in a moral contradiction. This was mentioned above. It would be good that they dont use the word abortion since it evokes the concept of termination of pregnancy and killing of the fetus andor the embryo. There should be another word to replace abortion because what the pro-choice fight for is something different and very far from abortion.

It is laudable when doctors rescue the life of the mother during labor pains. Only to this extent can they be morally justified. But if they directly and voluntarily intend evil for example, voluntary termination of the pregnancy and the success in saving the life of the mother is as a result of abortion, then the whole practice becomes morally flawed. Also in the case where a girl undergoes abortion for the sake of her education or fear of the parents, it will never be morally justified. First and foremost, her education or fear of her parents is not at all proportionate to the life of the fetus.

Conclusion
We can all bear witness that abortion is a complex issue and yet very simple to handle. I strongly believe that following from principles of morality, abortion will never be justified. Even if law makers across the board pass laws legalizing the practice, it remains an offence in law and any law recognizing abortion, therefore, becomes null and void. These are bad laws in making and it is a pity to have them in the social system since they will destroy the society moral consciousness. I have heard instances where couples or women confess that after they underwent abortion, they never enjoyed peace of conscience. Please note peace of conscience.

Conscience is the subjective guide of the human person. Conscience is a manifestation of the natural law to the subject since the natural law acts as the objective guide of the human person. The two moral concepts are therefore interrelated in fact, they are just two sides of the coin. We have seen the role of the natural law. Therefore, if natural law is interrelated with conscience and that people confess that they have been haunted by their conscience after acts of abortion then by logical implication we can conclude that their being haunted is an indication that what they have done, in particular abortion is morally evil. To sum it all the sources of morality, namely the act itself the intention and the circumstances are in principle better reasons why pro-choice cannot be tolerated with their liberal views on abortion. In addition, the principle of double effect also elaborates very clearly why abortion can never be legalized or accepted.  Therefore, any defense in de-legalization of abortion will make sense and prevail if addressed within the framework of the above principles.