Abortion and the Rogerian Argument - Essay Example

? Abortion and the Rogerian Argument Kimberly Fulmerhouser English 351 Dianne Bogdan 4/2/12 The essay aims to address a two-fold objective: (1) to choose an issue in nursing; and (2) to write a Rogerian argument on an issue in the field of nursing. Abortion and the Rogerian Argument Introduction Debates about abortion is interminable not only in the United States but to most countries in the world. Countries such as Iran, Ireland, Nicaragua, South Africa, and some regions of Latin America and Caribbean contested abortion and developed pro-natalist policies due to religious and cultural beliefs; whereas China, Cuba, and India supports abortion and have anti-natalist policies (McCoyd, 2010, 134). Debates centered on concepts of rights and moralities and groups are divided into prolife (anti-abortion) and prochoice (pro-abortion) advocates. Other’s Point of View Prochoice or supporters of abortion justify abortion through protection of the reproductive rights of the mother and reduction of suffering of unborn children with pre-diagnosed disability (Jesudason & Epstein, 2011, 541). In addition, the choice to have an abortion when a child is diagnosed with disability tends to fund the social services and support programs needed by the family; thus, overcoming financial repercussions. Instead of putting expenses on disability programs or special needs of children, funds would be allocated to the social services and programs needed by the family. Prochoice groups are fighting for the rights of the women on how to plan their families and in respecting disability rights. Lipp (2008) stated that health care in hospital has shifted to community settings and have led to the development of many abortion cases which can be cared for and recovered in comfort at the community or at home (p. 326). Prochoice groups put woman at the center of care and with this shift in healthcare, a pregnant woman may demand the right to be cared for after an abortion. The moral status, together with issues of gestation, viability and rights complicate the abortion debate but prochoice groups argue that the fetus has no moral status and performing abortion as a minor surgical or medical procedure is acceptable (Lipp, 2008, 326). Likewise, the provision and ready access to information about abortion increases independence and empowerment among women as essential methods and choices are being provided. According to McCullough & Chervenak (2008) moral status or the obligations of human beings to protect and promote the interests of an entity, covered the living, those in the ex utero, and offspring of human beings (p. 35). In the article, those in the ex utero are highlighted and authors stated that the fetus, being in the womb of the mother, has no moral status. Prochoice advocates argue that parents, health care professionals, and other human beings only have substantive obligations to protect and promote the health of children with moral status; thus, protection and promotion of the health of the living, those in the ex utero, and offspring of human beings. The concept of moral status is synonymous with the concept of legal status in the U.S. constitutional law (McCullough & Chervenak, 2008, 36). Those who are alive, ex utero, and within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitution have constitutional and civil rights; therefore, it is not only the lack of moral status of the fetus in the embryo that rationalizes the right to have an abortion but the lack of civil and constitutional rights as well. Despite this rationale, prochoice groups elaborated conflict about rights and emphasized that moral status is not rights-based but beneficence-based. The mother has beneficence-based obligations to the fetus, the obligation to promote what is good for the fetus (Kaposy, 2012, 84) and termination of pregnancy is possible only in criteria such as: “very high probability of correct diagnosis of anomaly, very high probability of death from diagnosed anomaly, and very high probability of severe irreversible cognitive deficit as a result of anomaly” (McCullough & Chervenak, 2008, 38). Abortion committed under these criteria does not violate the beneficence-based obligations of the mother to the fetus and maintains professional integrity; thus, abortion does not only protect the right of the mother but the beneficence-based right of the fetus as well. Prochoice groups challenge the Nebraska law entitled “Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act” which bans abortion after 20 weeks of gestation due to capability of the fetus to feel pain (Manninen, 2010, 33). According to the prochoice groups, many pain specialists argue that pain perception is not possible until mid or late second trimester and prohibiting abortion under this basis lacks supported evidence. Manninen (2010) defends the right of the women to have abortion in three different aspects: the right to prevent unwanted social parenthood, the right to prevent unwanted genetic parenthood, and the right to bodily autonomy (p. 36). In these cases, abortion can be of choice to women if pregnancy comes after rape or incest, if the child is diagnosed with genetic anomalies, or if the life or health of the mother is at stake. Shared Bridge of Information After learning the viewpoints of the prochoice advocates, I may not agree on abortion and may have different view as well but have found agreement on the idea of the prochoice groups in terms of protecting the welfare, rights, and health of the mother, lowering the incidences of unwanted pregnancies, provision of information about abortion, and reduction of suffering of the disabled. Discussion and Negotiated Solution We may not agree with the concept of abortion but we may agree on protecting the welfare, rights, and health of the mother through better reproductive health system and public health funding. As an individual, woman has the rights to autonomy, privacy, and bodily integrity (Gibson, 2004, 222; Chaloner, 2007, 47). I respect the individual rights of women but also valued the life of the fetus as well. Instead of engaging in a public debate about abortion, we must seek unity in asking the federal government to provide funds and programs for women who were victims of rape or incest, for children with genetic anomaly, and for women who have poor or severe health conditions. Whether it is provision of public funding or wider insurance coverage, making the reproductive health status of the woman better addressed their rights to appropriate health services and protection of health and welfare; thus, improvement in the health system concerning women may prevent acts of abortion. In the United States, a total of 825,564 abortions were reported in 2008 (Pazol et al., 2011, 1). I may not agree on abortion as a method to reduce unwanted pregnancies but we may all agree on the goal of lowering the prevalence and incidence of unwanted pregnancies through health care reform. Phillips et al. (2010) stated that financial and legislative barriers to health care affect the occurrences of abortion and a health care reform to equalize access to care and reduce barriers to timely receipt of care may have prevented unwanted pregnancies (p. 130). Educating the woman about abortion lies in the middle of the prolife and prochoice advocates and might be classified beyond the box of interminable debates. I may not agree with the act of abortion but have expressed concerns and agreement towards information dissemination concerning abortion. All individuals, including women, have the right to information. Communicating public messages of values, family support, diversity and policies must be conveyed in order to support what is best for women and families. Gallagher, Porock & Edgley (2010) stated that informing women about abortion services promotes autonomy of patients and enables health practitioners to effectively deliver and tailor care among women (p. 856). Educating the woman about abortion leads to awareness, an important tool to promote health advocacy and prevent unwanted pregnancies. In addition, it is also essential to educate and woman about concepts related to abortion such as post-abortion syndrome, the psychological harm or trauma experienced by the women after an abortion (Dadlez & Andrews, 2010, 445). Prochoice may not agree with the post-abortion syndrome but surely, they will agree on discussing all pros and cons of having an abortion. We may not all agree that fetuses found to have genetic anomalies must be aborted but we may all agree in requiring the doctors to describe the ultrasound images of the fetus, offer woman to view the ultrasound, and listen to the fetal heart beat to enable them to feel how it feels like to be a mother (Orentlicher, 2011, 13). In addition, we may all agree in pushing efforts from the federal government to develop and invest in programs aimed towards the provision of better information and support to pregnant women and new mothers whose fetus or newborn is diagnosed with genetic anomalies to reduce the suffering of those considered as developmentally and cognitively disabled. I and prochoice advocates have a number of conflicting viewpoints but if arguments are focused towards common ground, good listening, respectful attention, and acknowledgment of each position, controversial issues such as abortion might be better understood by both parties and actions would be moved towards betterment of all concerned. References Dadlez, E.M. & Andrews, W.L. (2010). Post-abortion Syndrome: Creating an Affliction. Bioethics, 24(9): pp. 445-452. Gallagher, K., Porock, D. & Edgley, A. (2010). The concept of ‘nursing’ in the abortion services. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 66(4): pp. 849-857. Gibson, J. (2004). The Problem of Abortion: Essentially Contested Concepts and Moral Autonomy. Bioethics, 18(3): pp. 221-233. Jesudason, S. & Epstein, J. (2011). The paradox of disability in abortion debates: bringing the pro-choice and disability rights communities together. Contraception, 84: pp. 541-543. Jones, K. & Chaloner, C. (2007). Ethics of abortion: the arguments for and against. Nursing Standard, 21(37): pp. 45-48. Kaposy, C. (2012). Two Stalemates in the Philosophical Debate about Abortion and Why They Cannot be Resolved Using Analogical Arguments. Bioethics, 26(2): pp. 84-92. Lipp, A. (2008). Challenges in abortion care for practice nurses. Practice Nursing, 19(7): pp. 326-329. Manninen, B.A. (2010). Rethinking Roe v. Wade: Defending the Abortion Right in the Face of Contemporary Opposition. The American Journal of Bioethics, 10(12): pp. 33-46. McCoyd, J.L. (2010). Women in No Man’s Land: The Abortion Debate in the USA and Women Terminating Desired Pregnancies Due to Fetal Anomaly. British Journal of Social Work, 40: pp. 133-153. McCullough, L.B. & Chervenak, F.A. (2008). A Critical Analysis of the Concept and Discourse of ‘Unborn Child’. The American Journal of Bioethics, 8(7): pp. 34-39. Orentlicher, D. (2011). The Legislative Process Is Not Fit for the Abortion Debate. Hastings Center Report, 41(4): pp. 13-14. Pazol, K. et al. (2011). Abortion Surveillance – United States, 2008. CDC-Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 60(15): pp. 1-41. Phillips, K.A. et al. (2010). Bringing evidence to the debate on abortion coverage in health reform legislation: findings from a national survey in the United States. Contraception, 82: pp. 129-130. Read More