Position paper 1 - Assignment Example

POSITION PAPER number: As the philosophical debate about the ethicality of abortion continues, the medical fraternity has found itself in a dilemma on whether or not abortion is justifiable under any circumstances. However, I firmly believe that life begins at fertilization hence abortion is unjustifiable not unless the mother’s life is at risk. This paper offers support to the aforementioned statement by drawing expansively from literatures by George and Lee (2005) and counter the objections raised by Thomson (1971) in an effort to support why the two lovebirds, Yelena and Yury, should not abort as it is a violation of human right and unethical.

Biologists hold that human embryos are human beings at an early stage of development. For Yelena and Yury, although the pregnancy was accidental, the mere fact that they are members of the human species dictate that they have the moral responsibility to facilitate rather than retard the internally directed development of the persisting human being. Whereas George and Lee (2005) claim that human beings are capable of consciousness and experience that empowers them to make greater claims than human embryos, such a claim is flawed and fallacious.

Firstly, during the embryonic stage, our conscious and personality were already fully formed since character is shaped at this early stage. As such, we were not human non-persons but human persons with all the psychological attributes. The mere fact that human embryos lack experience does not reduce it to a nonperson. We possessed intrinsic worth and human dignity since then, a factor that gives the embryo the right to grow and develop. This dignity is not dependent on inadvertent attributes such as IQ, age, size, or skin color but is rather intrinsic due to the entities we are.

Hence, while Yelena and Yury undertook significant measures to prevent the abortion, but it still occurred, it is unethical to terminate the life of the developing individual. It must be accorded the respect and dignity that it deserves since we also want to be treated with respect and dignity; it is not a ‘lesser’ human being.Honourably, Callahan (1986) strives to condemn those who justify abortion by claiming that the fetus is a biological parasite that continuously takes resources from a female’s body.

Evidently, this is a pro-choice feminist argument that overly exaggerates the fact that during the 9-month period, the mother’s energies and whole life will be actively involved in the development of the embryo to a baby. Callahan (1986) understands that such a simple reason cannot warrant the right to abortion since the present society is not too individualistic; women can obtain medical and social support during and after the pregnancy period.Whereas George and Lee (2005) indicate that abortion is ethical only when the woman’s life is in danger and done by a qualified medical doctor, Thomson (1971) ironically claims that a woman cannot be a full adult if she is not granted the autonomy and responsibility to make decisions over reproduction.

Apparently, he needs to understand that reproductive freedom cannot be allowed to override other moral obligations that are bestowed on women. Yelena and Yury, while we understand that they are still pursuing their education, the failure of the contraceptive led to involuntary pregnancy and are now fully responsible to safeguard the growing fetus.What’s more, abortion can be equated to murder hence punishable under the law. Undoubtedly, while it may not have a brain or heartbeat, the embryo is growing inside Yelena through cell division, and this makes it unethical for Yelena to abort.

While Thomson (1971) may argue that the embryo does not have value as it lacks self-valuation, aptitude and capability to communicate multifaceted ideas, self-consciousness, and sentience, the law already recognizes it as a developing human being and protects it against destruction. Yelena and Yury should, therefore, not abort, but should instead report the medical doctor who prescribed Preggernaut, the birth control pill which is also not 100% effective, assuming that such prescriptions ever occurred.

What I revised Firstly, I made the thesis statement more informative by adding some details. A previous confusion between the readings of Callahan (1986) and Thomson (1971) was also rectified. More details on why Yelena and Yury should not abort was also included to bolster my point and convince the reader through provision of solid arguments or/and evidence. I also clarified that the law recognizes and protects the embryo as it develops. Lastly, some less convincing or rather redundant sentences were eliminated to improve the quality of the masterpiece.

ReferencesCallahan, S. (1986). NECESSARY, ORTHODOX, & RESPONSIBLE: A Case for Pro-Life Feminism. Abortion & the sexual agenda. George, R. P. and Lee, P. (2005). The Embryo Question 1. Acorns and Embryos. A Journal of Technology and Society. Thomson, J. J. (1971). A Defense of Abortion. Philosophical & Public Affairs, vol. 1, No. 1. Pp. 47-66. Wiley Publishers.