A Legal Right to Terminate Pregnancy During the First Trimester - Essay Example

Moral Permissibility Of Abortion Moral Permissibility of Abortion Abortion is one of the issues which cannot be resolved without ethics. People often become too emotionally charged when they express their standing on the issue. Deb who discovers that she carries a fetus with Down’s syndrome has only 2 choices and 3 moral positions to choose. Her decision to keep a child or not depends on the pathway she chooses to reason this choice. Supporting prohibitionists, she would keep a child as abortion is considered to be evil and immoral under all circumstances. Their pro-choice opponents would grant her a right to consider all positive and negative outcomes of the situation and terminate pregnancy if negative ones will be dominant. Finally, moderate view supporters will consider the stage of fetus development and suggest that abortion is possible at the early term. In this essay, I will argue that despite the fact that Deb has a legal right to terminate the pregnancy, she needs to choose a solution which would give more positive consequences that the opposite one. Pro-life critics would oppose this argument saying that there is not case where human life can be taken away by other people. Human life is the biggest value. However, challenging the way people define ‘human’ and ‘sentience’ can lead to acceptance of abortion under some circumstances. In many ways, moral permissibility of abortion depends on the state of fetus development. According to Sumner (1981), human fetus is not static in its development. First of all it is constantly developing. Second, it is developing gradually and, third, there is a huge difference between the beginning of the pregnancy and the end of pregnancy where fetus is well-developed (Sumner, 1981). When a woman becomes pregnant, there is only a zygote in her body which does not look and act as a human being. In the process of development, zygote transforms becoming more developed and human-like. During late stages of pregnancy, the fetus is already well-developed. If a child is born being seven, eight or nine months, it can survive with the help of doctors. This fact proves that sentient characteristics in fetus develop in time; they are not presented in zygote initially. Thus, abortion during at the early term is permissible. These three characteristics used by Sumner (1981) in moral reasoning of abortion lead to the rejection of the main argument of prohibitionists as it does not consider that fact that pregnancy is a dynamic process. Conservatives argues that abortion is evil under any circumstances because it is the act of killing a child. Even though the child is unborn, it is already treated as a sentient being even at the earliest stages of development (Noonan, 1970). Moderate view followers support the idea that sentience criterion is applied to creatures which has some distinctive mental capacities like thinking. Embryo does not display them. In this way, legal permission of abortion during the first trimester is motivated. The same line of reasoning is suggested by Singer (1995). He argues that pro-choice people may challenge the definition of human and its applicability to fetus. Singer (1995) states that all human beings are conscious and rational. Embryo does not meet these criteria; as a result, abortion cannot be equated to killing a human being. At the same time, Sumner (1981) retains sentience criterion as it includes all these characteristics. The ability to feel pain appears in the process of fetus development. As a result, at the early terms of pregnancy, fetus does not have a moral standing; however, in the later terms, it has full moral standing as well as all other human beings. Considering Sumner’s moderate argument, Deb can terminate pregnancy if Down’s syndrome is diagnosed in the early terms of pregnancy. Moreover, a child with Down’s syndrome would never develop mentally to the level of an adult. As far as the embryo does not have a full moral standing and mentally impaired embryo has no moral standing, Deb must terminate her pregnancy. Even though Sumner’s arguments are persuasive, they cause several serious concerns. If an early fetus does not have a moral standing because it is underdeveloped, then people with special needs and new-born babies also do not have a full moral standing because they are underdeveloped compared to ordinary adults. This statement is unethical because it discriminates people and treats some of them worse than others. This verdict in Deb’s case would means that she must terminate her pregnancy leaving no chance that the child will be born. The fact that Deb may choose to terminate her pregnancy does not mean that she should do it. Pro-choice ethics gives women enough freedom to choose how to act because fetus is treated as a part of her body and her fate. According to this approach to ethics of abortion, women can terminate pregnancy in any case where she sees it as the most beneficial way out for all parties (Githens & Stetson, 2013). For instance, if a person believes that children with Down’s syndrome suffer their whole life, they would definitely terminate such a pregnancy. However, if they do not support this point of view, they might keep a child. Considering different sides of the situation, it is necessary to present all factors which influence mother, child and a family. There are many cases when families which decide to keep children with Down’s syndrome are happy; however, there are many opposite cases where families experience real hardships bringing up the child with special needs. One more factor is that abortion is a serious psychological trauma which requires much time and strength to be healed. On the other hand, life of a child with Down’s syndrome would never be easy. Pro-choice ethics empowers women to make decisions which are related to their health, body and life. It is necessary to consider community attitude to abortion and legal issues related to this process. Even though people treat abortion negatively in their majority, it is legally possible in cases of severe mental impairments of a child, cases of rape and other cases dictated by the law (Githens & Stetson, 2013). Down’s syndrome screening can diagnose the disease at a very early term, giving all parents a choice to make. Most people decide to terminate pregnancy and this decision is motivate by virtues they pursue in any case. As far as the first trimester covers the early developmental stage of a fetus, it cannot be treated as a sentient being because the processes and qualities required for sentience are not developed. If community allows Down’s syndrome screening, it should accept the decision to terminate the pregnancy if case if fetus is diagnosed with the disease. It is natural that all people have different virtues and values in their lives. For instance, human life is a value itself; it is the reason why taking away human life under any consequences is not permissible (Lu, 2011). According to Lu (2011), contemporary virtue ethics leads to the decision which forbids almost all cases of abortion. Lee & George (2005) also support the idea that some abortions should be treated as killing; however, there are some extreme cases when abortion is a better choice. If birth of the baby hurts and destroys other virtues of people such as family, work, relationships and leads to suffering of a baby, abortion is a way out. Deb’s case can be justified applying this approach to the dilemma. As well as virtue ethics, Utilitarianism makes people to consider consequences of their actions. In any moral dilemma they are required to act in a way which would reduce suffering and make more people happy. Deciding whether it is permissible or not to terminate the pregnancy, people should think if their actions would lead to deter outcome for all. If a person decides to give birth to a child with Down’s syndrome, they should consider the fact that this disease is impossible to cure and the child will suffers the whole life from it. It is morally difficult to take care of a child with special needs; it can require more time and resources than ordinary up-bringing process. On the other hand, nobody can predict the degree of mental impairment of a child. People’s desire to have children may be stronger than their concerns about their future life or difficulties they might experience in their families. Summing up, there is no single answer to the question whether abortion is morally permissible or not. Even though people have a legal right to terminate pregnancy during the first trimester, they should not use it blindly. Abortion is morally permissible only in the cases when it is a better outcome for the mother and her child. This serious decision requires much time and though to decide what is better for both. Any decision would have good and bad consequences and people can choose the set which presents a lesser evil. If they see that abortion reduces suffering of mother and child, then it is the right decision because it helps them both. Only complex analysis of the issue can help to resolve this personal dilemma. Under the circumstances where abortion is legally permissible, moral choice depends on personal ethics of a person. In any case, the choice is difficult because both decisions will have their negative outcomes. Every person chooses the best way according to his or her personal morality and situational context. References Githens, M., & Stetson, D. M. (Eds.). (2013). Abortion politics: public policy in cross-cultural perspective. Routledge. Lee, P., & George, R. P. (2005). The wrong of abortion. Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics, 13. Lu, M. (2011). Abortion and Virtue Ethics. In Napier, S. ed. (2011). Persons, moral worth, and embryos. Springer Netherlands. Noonan, J. T. (1970). The morality of abortion: legal and historical perspectives. Harvard University Press. Singer, P. (1995). Abortion. In Honderich, T. (1995). The Oxford companion to philosophy. Oxford University Press. Sumner, L. W. (1981). Abortion and moral theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Read More