This article explores the controversy surrounding South Korea’s anti-abortion law, which pits the right to life of the unborn child against the right to self-determination of the mother. The author argues that the right to life is the overriding value and that abortion should be banned except in exceptional circumstances, and that social problems should be solved through sex education and responsible sexual behavior, not abortion.
In October 2016, South Korea’s Ministry of Health and Welfare announced an amendment to its administrative rules that would suspend the licenses of doctors who perform illegal abortions for up to 12 months. However, due to significant backlash from the medical community, including the Korean Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the amendment has been temporarily delayed. Amidst the confrontation between the government and the medical community over the anti-abortion law, opinions on the law are also divided among the general public. Those who support the right to life and ethical values of the unborn child are in favor of the ban, while those who consider maternal choice and social realities argue that the current anti-abortion law is unjust.
In fact, the abortion debate began in earnest in 2010, when a pro-life medical association accused doctors of performing illegal abortions. In 2012, the Constitutional Court ruled in favor of the constitutionality of the current anti-abortion law, but as of 2016, the debate is still raging. While the arguments on both sides of the pro- and anti-abortion debate are sharp, there is a clear answer at its core. The right to life is more important than any other value and cannot be violated by others. Therefore, anti-abortion laws are valid and abortion should be banned.
Premise 1: It is wrong to take the life of a living, innocent human being.
Premise 2: The fetus is a living, innocent human being.
Conclusion: It is wrong to take the life of a fetus.
First, a fetus is a living person and therefore has a right to life. Most people agree with premise 1 without much objection, so if we agree that a fetus is a living person, then abortion should naturally be prohibited by the above three-step argument. But is a fetus really a living person? This question is similar to the question of when do we begin to recognize fetuses as people? Those in favor of abortion argue that a fetus is a person from the moment of birth, and therefore abortion is not murder. Furthermore, countries that allow abortion in legal terms use 24 weeks of gestation as the threshold for allowing abortion.
However, the questions “Is a fetus really a person before birth?” and “Should a fetus before 24 weeks of gestation be considered a lifeless clump of cells?” are not clearly answered by those in favor of abortion. From an existentialist perspective, the fetus in the mother’s womb just before birth and the baby after birth are the same entity. Since the fetus in the womb is not endowed with life at birth, it is unreasonable to assume that it acquires life and personhood at birth. Therefore, if we view a baby as a living person, it is not right to not view a fetus as a living person simply because it is in its mother’s womb.
So, in countries that allow abortion, and under the exceptional provisions for abortion in our own maternal and child health laws, is it justifiable to not consider a fetus a living person before 24 weeks of gestation? Before answering this question, let’s go back to the question we posed at the beginning: when do we begin to consider a fetus a person? While there is no societal consensus on the definition of when life begins, Princeton University’s Peter Singer has suggested that a human embryo is essentially the same person after the eighth cell stage. Peter Singer and other philosophers agree on the philosophical idea that an embryo is essentially the same as a baby after the eighth cell stage, the point at which new individuals, such as twins, do not arise. Based on these philosophical ideas, I also believe that an implanted embryo at five to six weeks, well past the eight-cell stage, is essentially the same as the fetus at birth, although it is difficult to give a clear indication of when life begins.
If we affirmatively recognize the status of a human being as a living entity, then it would be correct to view an embryo that has implanted past the 8-cell stage as a life, at least as an essentially identical entity. Of course, one could argue against recognizing a person as a living entity once its identity is established. However, I would argue that it makes more sense to define life along the continuum of life than to define life at a developmental milestone like 24 weeks. The argument that yesterday’s fetus suddenly becomes a living being today at 24 weeks of gestation is not convincing.
Nor does a mother’s right to choose rationalize abortion. Maternal right to choose is the opposite of the fetal right to life in the abortion debate: the idea that it is the mother who decides whether or not to continue a pregnancy, and therefore it is up to her to decide whether or not to give birth. In the modern world, personal freedom is considered the most important right to be protected. Therefore, we cannot invade a person’s privacy, nor can we regulate their sexual relations to prevent abortion. However, a prerequisite for this freedom to be guaranteed is that it does not infringe on the rights of others. A mother’s right to self-choice is necessary to ensure personal freedom, but it cannot be protected if it violates the unborn child’s right to life.
Just as it is not right to take the life of another human being for our own freedom, it is not right to take the life of an unborn child for the sake of the mother’s freedom. Pro-abortionists may argue that because the fetus is in the mother’s womb, it does not have a completely independent status and is a dependent part of the mother. However, the fetus is clearly alive and, in most cases, has a very good chance of growing into an independent individual. Just as parents have many rights over their minor children, but not over their lives, it is not right that a mother should have the right to decide the life of an unborn child just because she is a mother. Therefore, the unborn child’s right to life should be protected and should be prioritized over the mother’s right to choose.
Finally, extenuating circumstances do not justify abortion. Current anti-abortion laws basically prohibit abortion, but partially allow it in exceptional circumstances. However, pro-abortion advocates argue that the current law only allows a narrow range of abortions that do not take into account the realities of life, and therefore fails to protect mothers from unavoidable pregnancies. However, an analysis of actual abortion cases shows that unavoidable circumstances and exceptional cases are few and far between. According to the Ministry of Health and Welfare’s 2010 abortion statistics, of the 160,000 abortions performed, only 5% were due to unavoidable circumstances, such as rape, sexual assault, or other factors, such as a life-threatening abnormality in the health of the mother or fetus. The remaining 95% of procedures are not due to unavoidable circumstances, which violates the current law.
In addition to the limited circumstances outlined by the law, some may argue that pregnancy underage, pregnancy by an unmarried mother, family planning, and economic factors are unavoidable. However, these situations are not unavoidable, but part of the inevitable consequences of a person’s choices. There is a good way to prevent unwanted pregnancies: contraception. Preventing underage pregnancies and unwanted pregnancies among young people will require a radical approach to contraceptive education and sex education, rather than allowing abortion, which takes the life of a fetus.
It may be a matter of personal freedom to choose not to use contraception for free sex or sexual pleasure. However, personal freedom must be accompanied by appropriate responsibility. In real-life abortion cases, many people knew how to use contraception, but out of boredom or complacency, they did not use it, leading to pregnancy. A pro-life attitude and responsibility, not easy access to abortion, is the surest way to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
The issue of allowing abortion for genetic abnormalities using early prenatal diagnostics may be more controversial. This is where the values of fetal life and quality of life collide, as it is also included in the Maternal and Child Health Act exceptions. However, just as the lives of people with disabilities or genetic diseases are equally valuable to those without, it is not right to support unconditional abortion simply based on the presence or absence of a disability. While these exceptions need to be further discussed, most abortion situations are not unavoidable, but rather situations that require responsibility for freedom.
In conclusion, abortion should be banned to protect the unborn child’s right to life. Pro-choice advocates cite practical issues as reasons for the need for abortion, but contrary to their claims, not all unwed mothers choose abortion. Research also shows that most unwed mothers who give birth to a child do not regret their decision. This shows that it is not the situation, but the will to recognize the preciousness of life and overcome it, and the difference in perspective that is important. Therefore, practical issues should be approached based on improving people’s awareness and social systems, and banning abortion should ensure that precious lives are not abandoned and grow into healthy members of society.
