The US Supreme Court decision
On 24 June 2022 the US Supreme Court overturned, after half a century, the precedent of Roe v. Wade and the constitutional protection of the right to abortion. The move brought the heated bioethical debate around abortion back to the fore and sparked strong reactions worldwide. Why does protecting the right to abortion matter so much? Why has bioethics spent decades trying to define the ethical framework for abortion? What happens if women no longer have a legal right to abortion? The answer can be summed up in: 1) Illegal abortions with high risk; 2) Medical tourism; 3) Deaths. To understand this bioethical issue in depth, we look first at a historical example of what abortion prohibition has meant for women, then at arguments in favour of abortion rights, and finally at the current law in Greece.
The case of Gerri Santoro
A well-known historical example—and for many a turning point in securing the right to abortion—is the case of Gerri Santoro (Geraldine Santoro), who on 8 June 1964 tried to end her pregnancy illegally. She was 28 and had decided to end her 28-week pregnancy. Together with her partner Clyde Dixon—the father of the unborn child—she went to a motel in Connecticut, USA. Gerri Santoro was married with two children but was in an abusive relationship, which led her to leave her husband without having obtained a divorce. When Gerri and Clyde began the abortion procedure they had only a medical handbook that Clyde had borrowed from a colleague, Milton Ray Morgan, and some surgical instruments. The attempt to terminate the pregnancy failed. When Clyde saw that Gerri was bleeding heavily he left the room in a hurry and Gerri died from blood loss. She was found the next day by motel staff; Clyde and Milton were arrested three days later. At trial, Clyde was charged with manslaughter and Morgan with aiding and abetting illegal abortion.[1] After this event, movements in favour of women’s right to abortion (Abortion Act)[2] gained strength.
Ethical dilemmas and arguments in favour of abortion
The debate over whether abortion should be permitted or partly or fully banned rests on two opposing views. Those in favour of abortion—and of choice (Pro Choice)—argue that abortion is a matter of the pregnant person’s bodily integrity and support the right to self-determination and autonomy of the person who is pregnant. By contrast, those who oppose abortion (Pro Life)[3] state that abortion is homicide and that for this reason above all it should not be permitted.[4] These two positions form the basis of the conflict between the two camps.
In more detail, those in favour of choice base their argument on a woman’s right to autonomy and self-determination over her own body. To understand autonomy and self-determination we can ask: if a woman is pregnant and wishes to end the pregnancy, by what argument or right can anyone prevent her from having an abortion and impose an external will on her?[5] If the pregnancy is not at an advanced stage where the foetus could practically survive outside the womb, there is no clear reason why she should not have an abortion. Self-determination over one’s body is a fundamental human right, and in countries where abortion is criminalized that right is clearly violated. Autonomy is the right that allows a person to determine their own life and to make decisions about it as they see fit. So if a woman, after careful thought, decides to end her pregnancy, she should be able to do so, with access to counselling, social support and appropriate medical care. The National Women’s Health Network holds that the right to abortion is an inalienable right of all women and that women should have full control over what happens to their body and their life.[6] A central belief of many feminists is that even if the foetus has a right to life, its right to exist inside the woman’s body is not guaranteed.[7] If there is no clear consent to the pregnancy, or if consent was later withdrawn, the foetus has no claim over the woman’s body.[8]
Abortion is also defended on socioeconomic grounds.[9] If bearing a child is primarily an ethical and practical burden for the woman, how can it be argued that the potential person’s right to life outweighs the principle of benefit and non-harm to an already existing person?[10] In such cases the choice to have an abortion cannot be judged as anything other than ethically sound.
Another strong argument of those in favour of choice is the life of the pregnant person. Because the foetus can cause harm to the woman’s health and in some cases death, they argue that criminalizing abortion puts women’s lives at great risk. This line of thought goes further: if the foetus is an “innocent” being (as Pro Life argues), how can it cause the woman’s death? It is also worth noting that the opposing sides cannot agree on when—in time and in biological terms—human life begins. Those in favour of choice argue that human life begins at birth, so the foetus does not have the same rights as a human being.[11] Peter Singer, for example, argues that there is no point in debating when human life begins: the foetus simply has human DNA, which does not automatically mean it has a right to life or interests.[12]
The right to abortion is especially important in cases of rape and incest. Rape and incest—acts committed without the woman’s consent (in most cases of incest as well)—are among the most serious crimes against women. A woman must be able to choose whether to continue a pregnancy that is the result of violence against her; otherwise she is often forced to relive the assault. Psychological effects such as depression and post-traumatic stress[13] are among the serious consequences of such acts.
Current Greek legislation
In Greece, the Penal Code of 1834 and its 1924 revision prohibited abortion entirely, and those who broke the law faced very harsh penalties. In 1986 abortion was legalized. The provisions of the current Greek Penal Code (Law 4619/2019) are now very different. Under Article 304, which concerns offences against the foetus, it is clear that in Greece abortion is no longer an offence. Specifically, a pregnant person may end the pregnancy up to 12 weeks if they so wish. If the pregnancy is the result of rape, seduction of a minor, incest or abuse of a woman unable to resist, termination may be carried out up to 19 weeks. Up to the end of the pregnancy, termination is possible if there is serious indication of pathology in the foetus or if the pregnant person’s life is at risk. At any stage, if the pregnant person’s life is at risk, the pregnancy may be terminated. In general, the law recognizes rights in the unborn, but these cannot override those of the woman, and the woman is recognized as a legal subject and person while the foetus is treated as an object. Greek abortion law is widely considered one of the most liberal in the world.
Conclusion
In short, abortion is a difficult and enduring bioethical dilemma. However, new foundations have been set and it is widely accepted that women’s autonomy, as a basic principle of bioethics, must not be violated. The issue is not to reduce access to abortion or to ban it, since rates of unintended pregnancy cannot be lowered by such restrictions. The issue is to provide proper ethical and sex education from the school years and to respect human rights. Only in this way can unintended pregnancies be effectively reduced (if that is what the US Supreme Court is concerned with, so that women do not have abortions). In no case should access to abortion be banned outright, because, as discussed, what a woman does with her body and with her life plans is entirely her own affair.
Natalia Amasiadi
MSc Student in Bioethics, School of Medicine, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
nataamas@auth.gr
[1] Bloom, M., 2007. The woman in the photo. Rewire News Group. [2] Sheldon, S., 1998. The Abortion Act 1967: A Critical Perspective. In: Lee E. (eds) Abortion Law and Politics Today. Palgrave Macmillan, London. [3] Blanchard, D., 1995. The Anti-Abortion Movement and the Rise of the Religious Right. Twayne Publishers, New York. [4] Vasiloyannis, K. F., 2020. Αυτονομία και βιοηθικός εξαναγκασμός (Autonomy and bioethical coercion: a critical case study from abortion and euthanasia). University of Crete Press, pp. 21-57. [5] Hewson, B., 2001. Reproductive autonomy and the ethics of abortion. Journal of Medical Ethics, Volume 27, Issue Suppl II, pp. 10–14. [6] Staggenborg, S., 1991. The Pro-choice Movement: Organization and Activism in the Abortion Conflict, Oxford University Press: New York, 114. [7] Markowitz, S., 1990. Abortion and Feminism. Social Theory and Practice, Vol. 16, No. 1. [8] Roxburgh, N., 2016. Whose rights are the most right? The Dilemma of Autonomy in a Society: On Abortion, Women, and Human Life. Australian Institute of International Affairs. [9] Frederico, M., Michielsen, K., Arnaldo, C., Decat, P., 2018. Factors Influencing Abortion Decision-Making Processes among Young Women. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. Volume 15, Issue 2: 329. [10] Steinbock, B., 2007. The Oxford handbook of bioethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [11] Jali, M. N., 2001. Abortion - a philosophical perspective. Curationis, Volume 24, No 4. [12] Singer, P., 2011. Practical Ethics, 3rd Edition. Cambridge University Press, New York. [13] Muzokura, E. S., Makoni, P., Manditsvara, T., 2020. Rape related pregnancy: Concept analysis. International Journal of Advance Research in Nursing, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp. 102-107.
For more on autonomy, respect and ethics in how we relate to others and to ourselves, read our article Ethics and Empathy: Priceless Gifts for a Society of Peaceful Coexistence.
Happy Life Team
