Whether Abortion Is a Moral Issue - Coursework Example

Human life is invaluable. Abortion destroys this invaluable life form. Abortion is intentionally induced premature termination of pregnancy, which results in the death of an embryo or the fetus. People claim that abortion is a traumatic, life-changing decision, very personal to a woman. Women find themselves giving up their hopes and dreams to struggle for a child. No matter what the reason, women who opt for an abortion find justification for their act but never pause to think of the consequences and the repercussions it can have. One human being has no right to take away or destroy another life form. There may be instances of unwed girls who are pregnant or at times abortion is felt necessary to save the life of the mother. There are arguments that fetus does not have life. This paper will argue that abortion is morally not permissible. People claim that abortion has moral support today. Abortion is a moral issue but different theories of morality have diverse opinions. The arguments against abortion will be supported by theories on Morality, and views on abortion by different philosophers. Morally, Warren (1996) states that a fetus is not a human being in the moral sense because a human being must have at least one of the following capacities - reasoning, self-awareness, complex communication. Warren further explains that a fetus involves different stages of development. According to Thomson (1971), that it is only by the tenth week that the fetus develops face, arms and legs, fingers and toes, internal organs and brain activity. Hence, until the tenth week, the fetus does not have any of these capacities, it is not a person, and hence it is not wrong to kill a fetus. Conception is the fusion between the sperm and the egg. The zygote or the fertilized egg is already a person. The fertilized egg contains the genetic material to develop into a human being. Fetus is like an animal. If you brought an animal from a shop but later found that it caused you inconvenience, can you morally kill it? Similarly, if a woman becomes pregnant voluntarily, can she later decide to have an abortion? The argument here is that the fetus is an innocent human being; it is always wrong to kill an innocent human being; therefore it is wrong to kill a fetus. A fetus is dependent on the mother until 20-22 weeks of pregnancy. After that it is individual and capable of existing independent of the mother. Before this period, the fetus is like a bodily issue, e.g., a tumor and hence morally permissible for a woman to have an abortion, argues Warren. According to me, life in the fetus starts the moment conception takes place. At conception, human life with its own DNA comes into being. Abortion, even at 20 weeks amounts to nothing less than murder. Besides, whether someone has a right to live should not depend on whether she can live independently of others. For example, a patient under operation cannot live independently of the machine. Everyone has a right to live even though they cannot live independently, whether before or after 20 weeks of pregnancy. The process of gestation is a continuous development. There is no particular time when the fetus suddenly becomes a life form or an individual human being. Suppose the fetus is a body tissue, Warren argues that it is morally permissible to have an abortion. Just as you cannot kill a puppy that you brought from a shop and which started causing you inconvenience, a woman cannot kill the fetus just because it would inconvenience her life or upset her schedules. A fetus is an innocent human being; it is morally wrong to kill an innocent human being and therefore it is wrong to kill a fetus. Hence, any form or murder is morally wrong. Christianity and Hinduism alike believe that every human being comes to this earth with a definite purpose and has his or her clearly defined destiny. Killing a fetus amounts to aborting the process of evolution of that soul. The unwed mother has no right to destroy the fetus. It is only when there is a choice between saving the life of the woman or the fetus, that abortion can be considered, because in this case it would be a bigger sin to take the life of the mother. Suppose a woman was permitted to have abortion. Does that make her free of guilt? Primarily, she suffers from guilt even if she is hesitant to admit it. She knows it is morally wrong. She is ashamed, she spends sleepless nights, and she has disturbing dreams and nightmares. She may go into depression, attempt suicide, or there is the possibility of getting addicted to alcohol. Warren further states that there are two senses of a human being – genetic sense and the moral sense. Now to be a human being in the genetic sense is to belong to the Homo sapiens species, which means to have a certain genetic makeup. In this sense, a fetus is definitely a human being. The other argument that Warren poses is that to be a human being the fetus must have at least one of the following capacities - reasoning, self-awareness, and complex communication. Now, a baby too does not have these capacities so does that mean that baby is not a person? Secondly, in killing one’s own baby would have the same moral status as killing a fetus. People argue that the Greatest Happiness Principle states that the end result should give least pain and the maximum happiness to the greatest number of people (Mill, 1863). Utilitarianism says we must always do what has the best consequences. Anything that gives happiness has instrumental value. Happiness is supposed to be good and unhappiness evil. Hence the right thing is to promote happiness. A moral act is one that produces positive results and makes the world a better place. So actions are solely judged based on their consequences. Actions are right when they promote happiness and wrong when the reverse takes place. When happiness is the sole end of human action, the criterion is morality. No woman can be happy even at the decision of abortion, let alone undergo the process. Hence abortion is morally impermissible. Arguments may abound that abortion is a greater pleasure than bearing the child. Mill states that faculties in human being are more elevated than animal species and human beings can identify mental pleasure over body pleasure. Without any feeling of moral obligation, which pleasure is more desirable – bodily or mental? Undoubtedly, it is mental pleasure because that has long-lasting consequences while bodily pleasure is momentary. No intelligent human being would ever resort to pleasure or take a life-changing decision based on sheer bodily pleasure. The Greatest Happiness Principle states that any decision should bring happiness to the maximum number of people. We have established that fetus is a human being and hence its happiness maters too. In abortion, it is only the happiness of the woman that is taken into consideration. The fetus is happy to be born otherwise it would not have taken a form at all. So, the act of abortion does not bring happiness to the greatest number of people. People may still argue that in bearing the child, the woman would be sacrificing her happiness. For a moment, suppose this is taken as true, is it now a universal fact that sacrifice always brings happiness in the end? This is precisely what the Greatest Happiness Principle states – happiness should be the sole end of human action. Once again, abortion is not morally permissible. Mill further states that it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. Human beings often choose an inferior good. Human beings are above pigs in every respect and even if the decision not to abort brings dissatisfaction for some time, the end result is always happiness. There can be no higher joy, no pleasure more than giving birth to human life, to God’s wonderful creation. The sole end of human action is the standard of morality, which defines the rules and precepts of human conduct. In taking a decision for happiness, there should not be any vested desires but abortion has the desire to be mentally free of responsibilities and relieve oneself of the duty to take care of the child. Such an act cannot be for the sole end of happiness and hence it is not a moral act. Immanuel Kant believes that the moral worth of an action depends wholly on its intention. To act rightly is to act from duty. Duty can be imposed from oneself, it is internal. Our reason imposes rational principles on us to govern our actions. Categorical imperatives, that is action from duty, are moral actions. For example, preserve your own life and be honest. Such actions are performed not as a matter of principle but as a means to achieve a certain goal and hence have no moral value. If actions from duty cannot be followed by everyone as universal law, then it is not a moral act; the action is wrong. For example, committing suicide in order to avoid suffering cannot become a universal law because at other times you can reverse your decision. Suicide is a means to acquire happiness. In this case, abortion would be a means to acquire happiness while avoiding duty and responsibility. As Bennett (1980) states, a person has a prima facie responsibility; he or she is to some extent responsible for the state of affairs. If she had the courage to conceive, she should have the courage to face the world with the child. Abortion becomes a means to evade responsibility. This cannot be termed a moral deed. The sense of duty, responsibility and morality has to come from within. These cannot be externally imposed or enforced. Kant says duty can be imposed from oneself and a woman has to accept the duty towards the fetus she has conceived. It is also one’s duty to refrain from killing another being. In fact, abortion would amount to murder. Some people argue that not all who can become pregnant are ready for motherhood and hence abortion should be allowed specially in cases where conception is the product of abuse or violence. Those who support abortion take the plea that it resolves issues like embarrassment, financial burden, humiliation, interruption in education. Such children if born would remain unwanted and carry a stigma. This argument too has little significance because the number of pregnancies arising out of rape is negligible. Besides, even if the mother is unwilling to take responsibility of the child, many people are interested in adopting babies. In most cases of adoption, the true identity of parents is not disclosed so the child does not face any embarrassment. Besides, as mentioned earlier, every child comes to this earth with a specific purpose. Issues like embarrassment and humiliation would have to be faced because this would pertain only to those who have knowingly indulged in such acts. They deserve to face it and perhaps this would be a lesson for them to keep away from such acts in future. Abortion is definitely a moral issue because it involves conflict of rights. If a fetus is a person, it has right to live and a fetus is definitely a person. Abortion is morally impermissible even if it arises due to rape. The one and only situation under which abortion is morally permissible is when it is a choice to save the fetus or the mother. Abortion being considered immoral is not playing on a woman’s liberty or equality. Morality cannot be externally imposed. It has to arise from within. One’s conscience must be able to discriminate between the right and the wrong choice. Legalizing abortion has only given choice to a woman not to listen to this inner voice which urges her towards morality. Whether it is for the purpose of happiness or whether it amounts to killing a human being, abortion is morally impermissible. References: Bennett J (1980), Morality and Consequences, THE TANNER LECTURES ON HUMAN VALUES, Delivered at Brasenose College, Oxford University Mill J S (1863), UTILITARIANISM, What Utilitarianism Is. Thomson J J, A Defense of Abortion, Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 1, no. 1 (Fall 1971). Warren M A (1996), On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion, Biomedical Ethics. 4th ed. T.A. Mappes and D. DeGrazia, eds. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. 1996, pp. 434-440. Read More