Is it Moral or Immoral for a Woman to Have an Abortion - Essay Example

Is it Moral or Immoral for a Woman to have an Abortion? Abortion refers to th topics, which are usually not easy to discuss. It is a very questionable issue that must be observed through the different perspectives. It is a murder, some would say. Another claim that embryo is not a person yet within the particular time frame, when the abortion is allowed. Still, sometimes abortion may be a result of the mortal danger for the mother of the child; the pregnancy may also result from raping – thus ruining the mothers psychics and causing mainly hatred to unborn child as well. Thus the question is raised, whether it is moral or immoral for a woman to have an abortion? My position is that abortion touches both sides’ interests – the mothers and the child. Fetus has the right to live – yet mother is eligible to determine what happens to her body. One point is that every living person has the right to live. Thus, killing the embryo, even on early stages of pregnancy, the child has no such right. It is a kind of violation of human and moral rights. The same time, the future mother also has inseparable right to decide what happens to her body. There is a conflict; there is a tough decision. Some women (and men, who are involved, being a biological parent as well) get rid of unwanted children easily; while for other it is a tough decision that has severe influence on the whole life. There are presuppositions for such decision. They may concern health or material, financial possibilities to raise a child. They may address the moral side when the child is not expected, for example, when contraception had failed and the couple is not ready for having a baby. Abortion is very cruel – for both child and mother, and for a man usually, sometimes for close people and friends it may be tough as well. There would be several perspectives, through which the issues of abortion will be observed: Utilitarianism by Mill, Kants categorical imperative and Existentialism by Sartre. Utilitarianism imposes the ultimate meaning of greater good for the greatest amount of people. According to this rationale, an act is morally right if its results lead to bliss (nonappearance of pain), and wrong in the event that it prompts suffering. Abortion issue is always connected with suffering and pain – in case of any outcome. In case if abortion is not done, mother or/and child would suffer. In case the child is not expected and not wanted, they both would hardly be happy; if pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, it is a severe trauma for mother that will always have a living reminder that would never let to forget it. Mother may hate such child or try to get rid of it anyway then. In case abortion is done, pain, both physical and emotional would be present as well. Since the bonds between activities and their results – good or bad – are backed with the circumstances, no moral standard is essential or supreme in itself under utilitarianism. There can be various presuppositions for doing abortion. Utilitarians observe the deed, watching the entire measure of the good and pain delivered by this activity – after the act is performed or amid the execution. This means it is important to observe the whole range of options provided by the whole perspective in the long term. The child has future; sometimes it has not. Thus it is hard to say exactly, which choice would be less ethical. Some part of Utilitarians do not consider the decision between the two that have no extraordinary contrast as an ethical issue. Utilitarianism watches hypothesis of intrinsic value, which expresses that something can be great in itself, disregarding further results. This point would support the unborn babys intrinsic value. Every single other thing are thought to determine their quality because of their connection to this inborn great. Thus stressing this point would add the value to the unborn child. Satisfaction is seen as an offset of delight and agony. To inspect value and disvalue, one needs to sum up the measure of joy and the measure of agony, perhaps experienced by everybody included, now and later on. Equalization is a measure of the general extraordinary or hatred slant of a behavior. In this manner, inclining toward this methodology, we need to research all the likely great and terrible results of the variations to pick and make a decision. Appealing to Kants Categorical Imperative perspective, we would need to check what may be in case everybody acted like that proposed variant – this is known as the rule of universalizability. Would it be good if everyone made an abortion? Definitely not. People would cease to exist. But it is too plain to address it only through the universalizability principle, as the issue is very multi-dimensional. The deontological ethics statement is that a moral value of an act is self-determined disregarding of its outcomes; thusly the choice is not managed by them genuinely. Moral value of an act is seen through the perspective if the motivation was to take after and satisfy ones obligation. There is one possible act, which is the main fitting thing to do. This question is very unclear and challenging, observing the point of abortion, as it is hard to define what is the main fitting thing in such a dreadful situation. Both benefits and sacrifices have to be taken into consideration. As demonstrated by Kant, there is a characteristic commitment everyone needs to settle on the right decision relying upon it. It depends on upon the grouping we will pick as the base for the decision-making – there are two: rule and act deontology. Rule deontologists viewpoint is in perspective of the conviction of truth of the general measures to set standards for what is great and terrible. Thus, rule-deontologists would follow the accepted rules, being more patient as they accept outer conditions. Act-deontologists use at the cutting edge of their considerations, awareness and nature, instinct. This point sounds even more risky as it is very unclear. But the same time, the dreadful sin may sometimes appear to be the great virtue. There are rather rare cases, but they are, when women give birth to children, who appeared to be a result from raping. But they loved them and nurtured, and took care after them properly. While there are mothers, who treat their children badly even though the wanted and expected them to be born and grow up. Thus, Kants paradigm imposes a need to observe the variety of outcomes and inner presuppositions, otherwise observing only universalizability would not help in understanding and thus can be hardly applied as it is. Sartres Existentialisms main dogma says that existence precedes essence. The presupposition of this case is that there is an essence of anything. Any material thing, similar to markers, has the thought of it before it is being made. Inventor understands the need and reason. Therefore, the essence seems, by all accounts, to be before existence. It would be great, if people, having sex, would realize its purpose and probable outcomes – contraception would be observed more accurately. There is an essence of sex, an essence of pregnancy and maternity. Essence may change – thus changes may appear, including new highlights to the issues, which are unique in relation to essential substance idea. The contrast between spiritless items and human is that human exists and decides own essence by existence. Thus, unborn child has no essence – as fa as it has no existence. This point may somehow support the claim of abortion as not a murder. Human is what he or she had created from oneself. Child that was brought up in hatred and abandonment can hardly obtain virtues and moral prosperity. Being such an unwanted child leads to severe grief. Such people have less chances to become happy and successful usually – the psychical background is being created within early age. Sometimes children are born in dreadful conditions. Their parents may be criminals. No one knew who such child would become. However, sometimes they decide they want another destiny. They create themselves, gaining experience from other happy and successful people. Actually, Sartre provides fair approach, but it cannot help regarding abortion – it will say, probably that it is immoral – as essence is ruined within the core – as the mother cuts the childs possibility to create own essence through existence, removing existence by abortion. There is something heavenly, god-like in making own essence through the existence – despite the fact that Sartre was not a follower of any religion, being an atheist. Abortion requires thorough observation for any case – there are different presuppositions, yet there are different outcomes. Usually it is hard to find the very right decision. Life is ambiguous; teen mom may appear to be better mother than ordinary woman, people may change becoming parents. Sometimes abortion may be a better choice for a child if compared with life he or she would probably have. It is a murder anyway; but sometimes it is more merciful than death. Read More