The Ethics of Late-Term Abortion: A Liberal Perspective

One of the critical debates surrounding abortion reform is the introduction of late-term restrictions. Liberal views on this issue are rooted in the belief that any attempt to ban or restrict abortion access is, in essence, an imposition of unnecessary and unwarranted hurdles on a woman's right to choose. These tactics—including the closure of clinics, the imposition of lengthy waiting periods, and the requirement of extensive travel and time off from work—are seen as insurmountable obstacles that disproportionately affect low-income and marginalized communities.

Understanding Late-Term Abortion

Conservatives often seek to define late-term abortions as something they are not. They frequently refer to abortion as hysterical or desperate, failing to recognize the complex circumstances in which women find themselves. Late-term abortions, in many cases, are necessary due to severe medical conditions or the loss of a fetus, as evidenced by the tragic story of my neighbor.

Several years ago, my neighbor became pregnant with twins. During her eighth month, an ultrasound revealed a single heartbeat, sparking immediate concern. She was required to return for verification, causing stress and anxiety. This ordeal lasted for two agonizing days, highlighting the challenges and uncertainties faced by women in such situations.

When the second verification confirmed the presence of only one living fetus, she was left with the unbearable choice of either continuing the pregnancy and risking the life of the surviving twin or terminating the pregnancy. Unfortunately, at the time, abortion was illegal, and she was left with few options. The only recourse was to wait for natural labor to commence, during which she faced the constant fear of complications and the potential for severe health issues.

Abortion and Women's Rights

No respectable person would endorse the dehumanization and degradation of women for the sake of a fetus. As a liberal, my stance is clear: late-term abortion should be supported until the onset of active labor. This position is rooted in the recognition that a fetus is not the same as a fully-formed human being. At the point of fertilization, a scientific fact, the potential for consciousness exists, but it does not equate to the full personhood of an individual.

Fetuses, at the stage where abortion may still be considered, do not have the capacity for cognition or awareness of the world. Therefore, terminating a pregnancy at this stage does not cause suffering, neither to the fetus nor to the mother.

The alternative to allowing late-term abortions is far more problematic. Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will imposes significant, often insurmountable, hardships. It can result in prolonged and preventable suffering for the woman, as well as contribute to intergenerational cycles of poverty, abuse, and poor health. Furthermore, such policies strain the social fabric by diverting resources that are better allocated to helping women make informed choices.

A Balanced View

While acknowledging the sanctity of life from the moment of fertilization, my perspective is informed by a strong belief in the paramount importance of individual rights and well-being. The personhood that justifies strong protection and consideration comes from the ability to experience and participate in the world, not from the potentiality of becoming a person.

By fostering a supportive and compassionate approach to late-term abortion, society can better address the underlying issues that lead women to make difficult choices. Access to early and late-term abortions, along with comprehensive reproductive health education, should be prioritized to ensure that women have control over their bodies and futures. This approach not only upholds individual rights but also helps diminish unnecessary suffering and promotes a more equitable and compassionate society.