Abortion Term Paper - Essay Example

Abortion Term Paper Introduction Abortion is a topical issue within the society and has over the years gained a lot of relevance. Statistics indicate that, in the U.S., close to half of pregnancies registered among American women remain unintended with four out of ten of these pregnancies by age 45 ending up by termination by abortion. The dominant reasons cited for procurement of abortions are broad and detail concern for or responsibility to other individuals; some women who procure an abortion assert that they cannot afford a child; others cite interference with school, work, or their capability to avail care for dependents while others dread of being a single parent or have problems with their husband or partner (Callahan 116). The discussion makes several clarifications, distinctions, and oppositions that propel the ethical considerations for or against abortion. The core question that manifests in this discussion encompasses two questions, namely: whether abortion is morally wrong. These are unique issues as not everything that is immoral can be regarded as essentially illegal. This essay develops a general argument dwelling on the claim that the vast majority of procured abortions are gravely immoral. A. On the Issue of Abortion Abortion infers the premature removal of a fetus from the Uterus prior to 28 weeks gestation, the random established period of viability or prior to pregnancy reaching its full term. There are two forms of abortion, namely: miscarriage (spontaneous abortion) that happens mainly naturally, statistics indicates that close to 50% of pregnancies end in this manner (Callahan 117). Second, procured abortion encompasses intentional termination of the pregnancy mainly incorporating an operation to expel the fetus from the womb. Viability is entirely a relative term complete with value judgments, rather than a distinct descriptive entity. Although, abortion has over the years grown to become one of the most debate issues within bioethics, no moral consensus has been attained. The lingering debate on when abortions should be carried out, by what means, and the kinds on infants that should be saved demonstrate the complexity of the issue of abortion. The greatest difficulty presented, but abortion literature lies in spotlighting reliable philosophical and scientific arguments amid the dominating rhetorical manipulation (Bok 33). Academically, the issue of abortion centers on the balance between liberties both the mother, plus the baby. Theologically, the issue of abortion flows from two critical questions: 1) at what point is life considered beginning? (Whether at conception or birth); 2) if so, is it a sin to abort a fetus? The explanation suggested by the faiths detail that life commences at conception, and hence the baby is considered to be living from the conception (Monagle and Thomasma 17). Hence, it is a mortal sin (murder) to abort a fetus. The central argument that is mainly against abortion details that: the fetus is in essence an innocent person and it is morally wrong to terminate the life of a guiltless individual. Subsequently, it is morally wrong to terminate the life of a fetus. Some anti-abortionist will admit certain abortions such as abortion prior to implantation, or abortions procured the moment the life of the mother is threatened by a pregnancy, or abortion subsequent to a rape (Callahan 117). These cases of abortion may be considered to be morally permissible. B. The Moral Controversy Surrounding the Problem Public opinion on abortion can be categorized into three camps, namely: conservative, liberal, and moderate (or gradualist) all of which draws on both science and ethical thinking. Conservatives groups such as the Catholic Church perceive the fetus as a human being with full moral rights from conception onward. Conception in this case can be regarded as a critical point since this is the stage in which the embryo develops its distinct genetic code (Singer 189). Liberal approach, on the other hand, concedes that the fetus is human in a biological sense; however, liberals reject that this bestows the fetus with moral status or right to life. Judith Thomson’s “A Defense of Abortion” (1971) presented a radically different pro-choice argument by asserting that regardless of admission of the personhood of the fetus, this will fail to settle the morality of abortion as the fetus’s right to life does not essentially award it the liberty of using the pregnant woman’s body (Judith 69). More recently, Margret Little (2003) advanced that whereas abortion is not murder, neither is it automatically moral. Margret Little stipulated that a pregnant woman together with the fetus is not essentially aliens as she is biologically its mother. Hence, the connection between cannot entirely hinge on biological connection, but other stronger obligations, as well, which may sometimes override those of the fetus (Monagle and Thomasma 18). Moderate (gradualist) agree with liberals’ assertion that a fetus is yet to become a human person, but they also concur with conservatives that the late-gestation fetus resembles a born infant and hence have the same rights as a born infant (Bok 34). The Problem of Abortion: Ethical Considerations The problem of abortion is illuminated from diverse perspectives such as Kant, virtue ethics, utilitarianism, divine command theory, or ethical egoism. The fundamental philosophical question hinges on the moral status of the embryo and fetus. This translates to the assertion that if the fetus can be regarded as a person, then the same right to life given to any human being (since it is not morally acceptable to terminate the life of children whether they are unwanted, illegitimate or disabled or not) would be applicable to fetus, thus making abortion unjustifiable (Singer 190). Despite the legalization of abortion in the majority of western countries, the topic persistently continues to be contentious and conflict-ridden. While the Legislations in those countries have settled the right to have an abortion, the issue on the morality of abortion has continued to gain topicality. On one divide, there are those who perceive abortion as murder (an appalling and atrocious crime). On the other hand, there are those who view the attempts to limit the practice of abortion as a marked infringement of women’s privileges to privacy and bodily self-determination. As such, abortion has been the topic of considerable ethical thought as depicted by pro-life and pro-choice viewpoints. There are those who in general consider that all human life remains sanctified, and hence, the direct and deliberate termination of an innocent human life can never be a conscionable act. Conversely, a reverse argument may be advanced detailing factors that would minimize the future quality of life of the fetus could be viewed as a violation of the sanctity of life (Bok 35). In the event that the pregnant woman’s life might be at risk, then, debatably, abortion could be perceived as acceptable of the two evils. This makes the Principle of Double Effect to be applicable as the intent of the abortion would hinge on preserving the life of the mother, instead of that of the fetus can be regarded as a secondary outcome. Abortion from a Utilitarian Perspective Based on the ethical theory of utilitarianism, individuals must review the happiness of all parties involved and the actions must be selected based on those that yield the highest reward to the majority of people. From the utilitarian perspective, abortion can be regarded as permissible provided it is procured within the phase in which the fetus is inept of experiencing pain. Abortion and Natural Law Some of the approaches in natural law recognize reproduction to be an intrinsic constituent of the natural human condition. Hence, abortion is inherent in opposition to this design and subsequently, morally inexcusable. A. Review and Explanation of the Opposing Arguments An outline of the prevalent anti-abortion and pro-choice arguments manifest how the advanced arguments possesses particular forms of symmetries, that elaborate why the partisans of such position are highly convinced of the accurateness of their own positions. Typically, anti-abortionists assert that life is present from conception or that fetuses resemble babies or that the characteristics such as genetic code that is both critical and sufficient to be considered human. Hence, anti-abortionists appear to believe that the truth advanced in these claims is (1) quite apparent, and (2) the establishment of the outlined claims is necessary and adequate to proof that abortion is, indeed, morally analogous to murder (Warren 43). A standard pro-choice strategy asserts that fetuses are not necessarily persons or cannot be considered as rational agents or social beings. Hence, pro-choicers stipulate that (1) the truth of the advanced claims is apparent, and (2) the establishment of any of the assertions is adequate to show that an abortion is not an evil (Warren 44). The debate on abortion presents a standoff: the anti-abortionists claim that their position is reinforced by such recognized moral principles such as “it is prima Facie gravely wrong to terminate the life of a baby” (Monagle and Thomasma 18). The pro-choice strategy, on the other hand, asserts that his or her position is informed and reinforced by such reasonable moral principles as “being a person is what derives an individual’s intrinsic moral worth” or “it is simply prima Facie immoral to terminate the life of a member of the human community.” The moral principles outlined above lose their credibility under analysis. On the one hand, the anti-abortionists support a moral principle concerning the immorality of killing. This principle appears to be broad in scope to the extent that fetuses at an early phase of pregnancy will fall under it. The challenge presented by broad principles is that they frequently embrace indiscriminately. For instance, the outlined principle that “it is always a prima Facie wrong to terminate a human life” appears to incorporate the view that it is immoral to terminate an undesirable living human cell such as cancer-cell culture. This is grounded in the assertion that the culture is both living and human. It thus follows that the anti-abortionists most prominent line of defense is evidently too broad (Warren 45). Similarly, pro-choicers spotlight moral principle centering on the immorality of killing that tends to be narrow in scope to the extent that fetuses do not fit under it. The challenge presented by this approach is that the argument fails to embrace enough. Therefore, the advanced moral principle that “it is prima Facie gravely wrong to take the life of persons” or “it is prima Facie immoral to murder only rational agents” fails to clarify why it is immoral to murder infants, or the severely mentally ill (Monagle and Thomasma 19). It thus follows, that the propositions advanced by the partisans are either too broad or too narrow to be acceptable. This stems from the fact that, whereas it is evident that fetus are both human and living, it is ambiguous whether a fetus is a human being. This flows from the notion that something becomes a human being subsequent to a process of development, which means that first trimester fetuses, and probably all fetuses, are yet to attain the threshold of human beings. Pro-choice equally encounter problems as they attempt to highlight reasons why it is wrong to terminate the life of infants, or the severely retarded, but acceptable in the case of fetuses (Warren 47). The appeals to social utility, therefore, only appears acceptable to those who decide not to consider the colossal difficulties presented by a utilitarian account of the immorality of killing and the considerable social costs associated with preserving the lives of the unproductive. The pro-choice tactic that broadens the definition of “person” to infants or young children appear just as unreasonable as an anti-abortion tactic that broadens the definition of “human beings” to incorporate fetuses. This does not factor in other ambiguities on the terms “person” and “human beings” (Warren 50). C. Personal Position on the Controversy As discussed above, the perception that abortion is with infrequent exceptions, gravely immoral has attracted little support in recent philosophical literature; undoubtedly, majority of the philosophers stipulate that anti-abortion positions advanced by some quarters of the society are either an indication of unreasonable religious dogma or a conclusion derived from an extensively flawed philosophical argument. The aim of this section is to undermine this belief by setting out an argument that contends that abortion is indeed, except in exceptional cases severely immoral and should be admitted in the same moral scale as killing an innocent human being. I have to confess that prior to researching on the topic, my assertion was that every pregnancy, and each decision regarding pregnancy is an isolated case and that abortion should not be oversimplified into solitary issues. Initially, I believed that professionally-guided legal abortion is both necessary a medical necessity and human right, and hence abortion should be permissible; however, after researching on the topic, I have realized that my initial proposition was fundamentally flawed. Don Marquis, views, in particular, has had considerable impact in shaping the conclusion that abortion is indeed morally wrong. Marquis approaches the problem of abortion from the assertion that abortion is wrong as it likens to killing an individual and subsequently depriving its victim a valuable future. In a significant way, the granting of abortion rights works towards placing the rights of the fetus below those of born infants. This is in essence morally and ethically objectionable. Abortion denies the most indispensable of all human rights-the right to life and is thus unjust, besides it fails to solve the social problems that are mostly cited as being the drivers such as financial insecurity and unstable relationships that make women want to terminate their pregnancies (Lee 109). Instead of alleviating the problems, abortion chips away at the spirit of the society right from the family, peer group, to the government in spotlighting humane solutions that do not incorporate terminating the life of the baby. Abortion is immoral based on the assumption that it is wrong to kill human beings. Killing is wrong owing to effect on the victim (rather than its effect on the murderer or victim’s friends or relatives). The loss of an individual’s life can be thought to be the greatest loss that the individual can endure since it robs the individual all the experiences, activities, or enjoyments that might otherwise shape part of the individual’s future (Marquis 1). Hence, killing someone is immoral, essentially because it metes out the utmost feasible losses to the victim. The impact of the loss of the biological life can be regarded as the victim’s loss of experiences, or delights that would have constituted part of the victim’s future life. Thus, this would make the killing of a human being prima Facie gravely wrong as it represents the loss of the victim’s other future. This assertion is unsuited to the notion that it is wrong to terminate the life of only beings biologically considered as human. This assertion counters the claim that only life that is biologically human possesses great moral worth, an assertion that the majority of anti-abortionists appear to embrace. Second, the assertion that the loss of an individual’s future is immoral, does not incorporate, as the sanctity of life theories stipulate, that active euthanasia is wrong. This is informed by the observation that individuals who are severely and terminally ill, and who face the prospect of a future full of pain and despair, and who desire to die will not have incurred a loss if they are killed (Marquis 2). This account of the immorality of killing necessitates that it is prima Facie gravely wrong to terminate the life of children as they possess futures of value. Personhood theories detailing the immorality of killing, on the other hand, fail to present a clear-cut account on the immorality of terminating the life of children and infants. The assertion that the essential wrong-making element of a killing is the deprivation to the victim of the worth of its future has evident significance to the ethics of abortion. This derives from the observation that the future of a fetus encompasses a set of experiences, or that it is immoral to terminate the life of human beings at the time of birth it is equally immoral to do so amid the pregnancy. Hence, abortion is prima Facie gravely morally wrong. This assertion does not flow from the invalid inference detailing, “Since it is immoral to kill persons, it is equally immoral to terminate the life of prospective persons too.” The element that is morally critical to this analysis is the possibility of possessing a valuable future, rather than the element of personhood (Lee 108). This approach that yields the conclusion that abortion is prima Facie critically morally wrong progresses independently of the idea of “person” or “potential person” or equivalent. The assertion that abortion is prima Facie morally wrong as fetuses possesses a future is, however, countered by the assertion that fetuses are deficient in property that is critical for the value-of-a-future assertion. Since fetuses cannot value their futures, it thus follows that their futures are not dear to them. Nevertheless, this assertion fails due to its inherent ambiguities as something can be of value even if it is not valued by the owner. This anti-abortion approach is normally shot down by claims that details that entities cannot enjoy the right to life unless they manifest the capability to desire its continued existence. Hence, since fetuses lack the theoretical capacity to desire continued existence, they possess no right to life. However, this argument manifests its own frailties such as the assumption that the right to life cannot be ascertained in general on other grounds other than the desire for life (Boonin 4). Similarly, there are those who advanced that, although, the outlooks of an embryo might appear to be the foundation of for the argument on the immorality of abortion, an embryo does not qualify as a victim (lacks sentience), and hence cannot be wronged. The examples outlined in this assertion clearly ignore the fact that embryos can be victims in that they are intentionally terminated, and subsequently, denied their valuable futures and prospects (Marquis 1). This makes fetuses victims, for they are directly wronged It is evidenced that individuals who involve in abortion are usually left with deep emotional and spiritual scars. This flows significantly from the accompanying assertions touching on faith and comfort. Since most people feel that the issue of abortion influences both the heart and the mind, equally, which, in turn, shapes the notion of abortion is, indeed, a matter of life and death (Boonin 3). Some individuals classify this argument to be of purely intellectual basis based on what concerns human beings and their conscience. For some, abortion is an issue since it is considered to violate the dignity of the human person by negating innocent babies right to live, and it thus follow that abortion is murder. Conclusion It is evident that passions within the abortion debate run high filled with both plausibilities and complications in regard to the standard positions undertaken. Doctors are increasingly grappling with cases of whether a child born out of abortion should be awarded similar extraordinary care as one born of miscarriage. Nowadays, physicians are presented with the scenario of terminating a pregnancy that, otherwise, in two weeks doctors on the same floor would be struggling to save. Such cases are increasingly throwing the present policies into turmoil as they ponder when the fetus born alive should be awarded all chances to survive. Consequently, it is barely unforeseen that partisans of either divide enthusiastically embrace the moral generalizations that reinforce the conclusions that the two divides either favor or reject. Abortion is an issue and entirely wrong and betrays everything that human beings stand for as it is an outright denial of the right to life of innocent babies. It is critical that the personhood of the fetus should be recognized and respected. When focus is laid in delivering selective application of rights, placing those of the mother above those of the fetus, a personal tragedy is perpetuated in ignoring or dismissing the inherent right of fetuses. Hence, abortion is prima Facie morally wrong since fetuses possess life that is gravely wrong to terminate. Works Cited Bok, Sissela. Ethical Problems of Abortion. The Hastings Centre Studies 2.1 (1974): 33-52. Print. Boonin, David. A Defense of Abortion. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Print. Callahan, Daniel. “Abortion and Medical Ethics.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 437.1 (1978): 116-127. Print. Judith, Thomson, “A Defense of Abortion,” Philosophy and Public Affair 1.1 (1971). In Intervention and Reflection: Basic Issues in Medical Ethics, ed. Ronald, Munson. 5th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Co, 1996. Print. Lee, Patrick. Abortion and Unborn Human Life. Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 2010. Print. Marquis, Don. “Why Abortion is Immoral.” Journal of Philosophy 86.1 (1989): 1-10. Print. Monagle, John, and Thomasma, David. Health care ethics: critical issues for the 21st   century. Sudbury: Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 2004. Print. Singer, Peter. Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press, 1993. Print. Warren, Mary. “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion.” The Monist 57.1 (1973): 43-61. Print. White, James E. Contemporary Moral Problems. Australia: Thomson Wadsworth, 2009. Print. Read More