Rachel is a college student with a bright future ahead of her. By the unfortunate turn of events, she gets raped when she is returning home in the late evening. The criminal gets arrested immediately after the incident. Later, Rachel finds out that she is pregnant, and she is confused what to do. On the one hand, she is known to be an exemplary person who respects others and is against of any kind of unrighteous behavior towards other person. On the other hand, she is afraid that the child will serve as a reminder of the rapist and she has set a lot of plans for her studies and career path. Her parents tell her that she should keep the baby as abortion is a murder of a human being. They say that they are ready to help her raise the child, but Rachel feels hesitant about this decision.
Analysis of The Situation
Abortion calls for very much idea moral and good guidelines since it depends on a crucial part of humankinds presence, which is human existence. It is characterized as eliminating or barring an undeveloped organism or embryo from the uterus to try not to conceive an offspring. The morals of fetus removal have been a milestone since the ascent of bioethics by the 1970s (Rachels & Rachels, 2019). The conversations on the morality and the sin of ending pregnancy are intensely politicized, particularly in the USA, additionally in numerous other Western nations (Billauer, 2016). The ongoing debate between life supporters and those who favor the right to choose has regularly been introduced as a conflict among conservative and liberal philosophies and various arrangements have been set up by the laws directing abortion on account of various nations (Billauer, 2016).
A reasonable strength of Utilitarianism while examining abortion is that there is no outright worth set on human existence, which means it keeps away from moral inquiries regarding when human existence starts. Act Utilitarianism is especially valuable, as it likes to pass judgment on every individual case on its own benefits, which means abortion would be particularly up to the mother, and what the results would be for her life. This implies conditions like extreme fetal irregularity, assault, and monetary flimsiness would all be able to be considered under utilitarian idea (Cohen, 2015). Notwithstanding, passing judgment on abortion on the premise on government assistance can be hazardous in light of the fact that we are regularly incapable to set up the drawn-out outcomes of the activity, thusly long-term harm cannot be surveyed. Also, Rule Utilitarianism expresses that choices ought not be limited by singular government assistance, however by cultural government assistance (Rachels & Rachels, 2019). In this manner, Utilitarianism is not the best moral hypothesis to apply while talking about fetus removal, as the contentions among Act and Rule Utilitarianism. Notwithstanding the thought for all conditions given by Utilitarianism, eventually it is hard to build up the full outcomes of a fetus removal, which means other deontological speculations might be more valuable.
Natural Law morals forbids direct abortion at any stage since it is the taking of honest human existence. A purposeful elimination would appear to have a place overwhelmingly with the classification of sins considered in opposition to nature (Finnis, 2012). In the event of assault, there is a contention of rights (Finnis, 2012). The privilege of the mother to bear posterity willfully collides with the assumed right of the human embryo to life. This encroachment of the mothers privilege absolutely affects any commitments the mother would typically have without such encroachment (Ntontis & Hopkins, 2018). If each woman has a privilege to conceive a baby and if it was done voluntarily, she should not go for abortion.
As indicated by Aristotles embryological and mental hypotheses, a zygote has a soul, thus, it is a living organic entity. Aristotles mean expresses that, Moral virtue is a middle state determined by practical wisdom (Lawrenz, 2020). Aristotles moral hypothesis upholds the possibility that at whatever point there are two limits, settle for the center ground, since it is more secure, as opposed to indulge or under enjoy (Lawrenz, 2020). At the point when this moral hypothesis is applied on account of fetus removal, the two limit contrary energies are one, to have an infant whom the mother does not need while the contrary limit will be to remove the embryo, which is murder. The center ground then for this situation will be to convey the child and surrender it for appropriation. Aristotles Golden mean gives a center ground in the fetus removal issue. The mother will not have submitted murder through fetus removal however much she may convey the pregnancy and its difficulties. After the pregnancy, the infants life will be saved and, in this way, given the option to live with adopting family.
The subject of abortion and birth control was a delicate theme for ages, it was a source for debates for determining the validity of the mentioned topics. The difference in the religious and cultural background for the debaters through the history made the outcome of this debate, taking in consideration the technological progress in the modern world interesting to examine. This article mainly focuses on some of the questions surrounding the abortion and the birth control such as: Is abortion moral; Are there benefits for legalizing abortions; the contraceptive in its various forms as a birth control; Sexual education. When using different sources it is not necessarily that the article supports and agrees with their statements, as the goal of the article to give an idea of the general points of view and to discuss them.
The morality of the abortion was and still is a sensitive issue in the world today as the world is divided into separate groups of opposing parties. In the article Is there Life After Roe Wade? (Mahowald, 1989), the author talks about the morality and legality of the abortion and what was changed since the case of Roe V.Wade.
The author neither takes the side of the supporters of the legality of abortions nor their antagonists in their debates. In his article the role of church is not mentioned as the religious point of view for morality.
The position to abortion though it is in general would be a matter of eternal accusation of immorality by some people and justification by the other. The procedure of the abortion could not be taken as an absolute definition which not relevant to other issues.
Such as issues as the health conditions of the pregnant woman, the circumstances that surround her pregnancy, the social conditions for the newborn baby, and the age of the mother. In addition it should be taken in consideration that most of the debates go through the differences between abortion as a termination of the unwanted pregnancy and the abortion as a termination of fetus.
These debates will not clear the subject of the abortion and its moral or immoral value. The circumstances surrounding the abortions are sometimes more immoral than the abortion itself. Showing practical solutions that could make the moral decisions about pregnancy easier but will not totally make it acceptable definitely show that the issue would still have its share of controversy in the future. (Mahowald, 1989).
In spite of the delicate matter of the abortions and the battle that surround them for the legal and the moral side of this case, there are some evident benefits of making abortions legal in some countries. In countries in which abortion has been legalized , there are a decrease in the quantity of incompetent abortions that involves risking the life of the women.
In countries where abortions has become available the women of certain categories such as the older women or the women with diseases has the right to stop the unwanted risky pregnancy, and as a result the women who decide to take responsibility of giving birth are healthier and more able to the cope with the difficulties of childbirth. As a result the overall mortality of women increases in the countries where legal abortions take place. The other benefit is the rising welfare of the society as a result of the decreasing number of unwanted children. Children who most likely to be neglected, abused and rejected from their families and as a result get a mental or neurotic illness who most likely if not healed may commit a crime in the future.
Medical abortions on request and good quality care in this area are a tremendous advance not only toward individual health and the dignity of women, but also toward a more loving, caring, and more responsible society, a society where cooperation rather than violence will prevail . (Morgentaler, 1996).
The general point of view in decreasing the number of abortions is the use of contraceptives as a birth control.
It is evident that the countries that there a connection between the wide availability of the contraceptives and the abortion rates.
Its no accident that the worlds lowest abortion rates are found in Belgium and the Netherlands, where contraception is widely available, or that the highest rates are in Cuba and Vietnam, where access is limited .( Abortion Prevention, 2007, p. 5).The second vital issue in birth control is the use of education and the family planning as a strategy for birth control.
The involvement of the government role in the social programs of reducing unwanted abortions is vital. These programs should focus on teaching the teens the family values along with providing them with the sexual education about contraception. The focus only on the delay of initiation of sex among teens by focusing on abstinence programs is a good way but it proved effective when in addition to proper sexual education. The birth control has been a subject of discussions in the US, but it focused on abstinence-only programs that encourage sexual abstinence and dont refer to contraceptive methods except to indicate their relative failure rates, where reports of National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy that educational programs that focuses both on the contraceptives and the abstinence were positively more effective.
The value of sex education in a modern world countries rises along with the serious problems that teenage pregnancy represents. If the unwanted pregnancy for an adult grownup women that thinks of solving this problem is an issue of legality and morality she is capable of taking responsibility of. The children under eighteen of age are not adults, so in terms of legal and financial issues still the responsibility of their parents and the community in general. The teenagers despite of their sense of rejection in the years of puberty share values of life with their parents. According to that the responsibility of educating the kids about the risks that can face them fully lies on the shoulder of their parents and the government. Within a year, a sexually active teenage girl who does not use contraception has a 90% chance of becoming pregnant. (Rosoff, 1996). The majority of teenagers when faced with the unwanted pregnancy usually have an abortion or choose to raise the baby.Much of the outcome depends on education and financial status of the family she lives in. The dilemma of the abortions was discussed, but the pregnancy as fact that can end in the teen girl raising her child alone also a factor that need consideration. The role of the society in protecting the teenagers the full and practical knowledge they need to cope with, as the intensity of the sex in the media along with the attraction to opposite sex that becomes maximal in the years of puberty, can put a lot of pressure the youngsters need to know how to deal with. A better sex education and wide access to contraceptive are first steps in teaching the teenagers how to better cope with their future responsibilities.
The topic of abortions and birth control would not end no matter how many discussions take place or how many groups of supporters or haters occur. The issue of morality can only be limited by legality which might be different from country to country within its jurisdiction. The issue of morality will stay individual and will represent a different point of view, as for every person there are going to be a new opinion that justifies a situation that another opinion rejects. Talking about benefits or harms of legalizing abortions is not as useful as providing better sexual education for teenagers and better birth control conditions for grownups.
In any case this topic with its relevant sensitivity is the subject of debates that is not going to stop unless it is completely clear whether the termination of unwanted pregnancy is a necessity or not. If it is a necessity what are the conditions that distinguish between whether It is an issue of privacy or a woman health risk , whether it is irresponsibility or it is a solution. One thing for sure is that it will not be a pleasant matter to neither to discuss nor to go through.
Works cited
Mahowald, M. B. (1989). Is There Life after Roe V. Wade?. The Hastings Center Report, 19(4), 22+.
Morgentaler, H. (1996). The Moral Case for Abortion. Free Inquiry, 16, 17+.
Abortion Prevention. (2007). The Christian Century, 124, 5.
Rosoff, J. I. (1996). Helping Teenagers Avoid Negative Consequences of Sexual Activity. USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), 124, 33+.
Abortion is the most contradictory concept in human history today. This is worsened by the fact that one has to be on either side of the debate and not on both; neither can he/she be neutral. One group involves pro-life and the other pro-choice. Therefore as one insists on preserving life no matter the situation, the pro-choice believe the women have a right to choose whether or not to carry the fetus to term or not. Simply, put terminate life. However, the major point of contention has not been whether the mother is the victim or not; but more on where does the fetus really attain the status of a person with rights and the ability to make a choice.
A number of justifications have been conjured to legitimize abortion. Self-defense having been supported by those that subscribe to this belief fails when it has been proved that not only does the mother have basic human rights, but also does the infant. The second justification based on utilitarianism holds less water as it favors a persons (mothers) choice more than the value of life. On the contrary, the belief in the concept of personhood stems from the origins of rights not being regulated because we are biological species but purely on the grounds that we have mental capabilities, (Hayworth 2001: 72-73).
Being one of the initial campaigners of these rights, Diana Alstad, (1997) is proud to have contributed to legalizing abortion. In her talk at National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), she is stern in defending the notion that their access to abortion had been eroded and the right to abortion threatened. Referring to Roe v. Wade, the 1998 US Supreme Court decision to legalize abortion, she pegs the blame on this decision for initially politically galvanizing their religious right. Her view is tied to a long-fought battle that up till now, no longer accords women the attention that was initially their plight before Roe v. Wade decision. Instead, the reactionary element has shifted and made the point of focus on infants, fetuses, and zygotes. As a precursor, the abortion debate is merely between fundamentalists and modern people over basic values. Though on a higher scale this debate spans into the big question, who has the right to decide whats right?
Similarly, on the pro-life camp, it is almost impossible to elaborate on facts for tarnishing abortion as murder without contrasting some of the beliefs one holds high. Therefore, it has for both camps to stand out of the debate without feeling that he has over-stepped on some ideologies he upholds.
The morality of abortion, therefore, has to be feted with scientifically proven evidence/research in order for it to be instituted with laws governing abortion. Otherwise, the debates keep on raging without ultimately pointing out who or what is the right direction to follow no such regulations would be established anytime soon. An example involves the argument that illegality in abortion persists when a woman knowingly terminates a pregnancy and walks without being treated like a murderer. This is clarified more by the way the human reaction towards the death of a person varies with the death of an infant. Here, it is clear that humans generally treat both deaths differently; valuing one more than the other, (Steven 1990).
The varied views will for a long time be for as long as one group keep infringing on what another camp deems holy. The religious and the fundamental believers will always wage war on the liberal biological gurus knowing that they are misleading on the contrary view. Therefore a common ground should be sought in order for regulating to take route. While the religious believers are being encouraged to relax their standpoint on abortion, the pro-choice campaigners should be trying to portray abortion as a positive option that not only gives the woman a chance to choose but also determines how men and children are protected in society.
Works cited
Hayworth, A. (2001), The Baby We Cant Ignore . Marie Claire, pp. 72-73.
Alstad, D. (1997) Abortion and Morality Wars: Taking the Moral offensive. National Abortion Rights Action League, San Fransisco.
Steven S. (1990) The Moral Question of Abortion. Loyola University Press.
Both sides of the abortion issue contain legal, ethical and social considerations that provoke great emotions. Thus far at least, mans law has judged abortion legal and by extension ethical because laws are generally considered the measure of societys moral standard. Gods law, as interpreted by some from the Holy Bible, has ruled abortion unacceptable. It is no surprise to anyone that others draw different conclusions from the pages of the Bible. Some believe abortion to not only have legal merit but it morally preferable to the restriction of abortion rights. This faction adeptly justifies their stance in mans law the U.S. Constitution and Gods law, the Bible. Of course Mans law can change with a slight adjustment in the Supreme Court and Fundamentalist Christians argue no such justification exists in the Bible. This discussion examines the differing interpretations of Gods and Mans laws as it applies to abortion.
Gods Law Permits Abortion
Gods commands are more clearly defined for the orthodox Christian. Thou shall not kill is straightforward and non-ambiguous i.e. dont kill babies. The reason society has allowed abortions to be semi-accepted within the culture is that for some Christians, the implications of Gods commands are not as obvious. Some extend this Commandment to include the death penalty, others do not. Some believe life begins at conception and others when a baby takes their first breath therefore abortions are not taking a life and Gods command is not violated. The Bible is progressively becoming viewed as a moral guideline by a growing number of parishioners and the Ten Commandments as the Ten Suggestions. According to The Divine Command theory (DCT), Gods words are the basis of morality and should be followed to the letter. Still, even for the most conservative Christian, the command not to kill is somewhat subject to interpretation. Can people kill animals for the pure sport of it or only as a food source? It is not difficult to understand how Gods words can be considered open to analysis but the difficulty of the abortion issue is that the breadth of the interpretation is very wide.
The DCT is clear and non-negotiable for some but for others, its tenets remain subjective and vague. If a person rejects the DCT, this does not imply that they believe morality to not be founded by God but that His commandments are not the foundation of morality. For example, according to Natural Law Theory, God created the world and all its physical laws and this includes the laws of morality; and we can gain knowledge of these laws even if we do not believe in God and know nothing about his will and commands. (Felis, 2007) If a person accepts the Natural Law Theory, Gods commands are still valid within this reasoning and should be adhered to because, if for no other reason, that they are widely accepted as sound moral advice if not the basis for morality.
Given that the DCT is beyond reproach, the concept of morality as understood by the individual may be skewed because of a lack of understanding which tends to distort the commandments message to the receiver. A persons moral view combined with certain plausible assumptions might have unforeseen implications that are incompatible with some of that persons particular moral judgments (Velasquez, 2002). While true, this argument is often erroneously used to explain why those who subscribe to the DCT oppose abortion. The claim is based on the premise that the fetus constitutes a person and is arguable therefore the conclusion that abortion is in moral conflict with Gods law is also arguable. This reasoning applies to other issues such as homosexuality. Those that consider homosexuality to be in opposition to Gods law and unnatural may have an inflexible view of what is unnatural. As evidence, persons who are gay believe their lifestyle to be perfectly natural. Of course, the majority of society does not agree with this viewpoint and Gods law specifically forbids homosexuality. Natural Law Theory reasoning cuts both ways however. An individual may believe, for example, that abortion is acceptable in the eyes of God and not morally wrong because it is not immoral to destroy something that is not aware it exists and a fetus is unaware.
Good advice for those that have varying views of when life begins, oppose or support legal abortions, believe homosexuality is natural or unnatural is not to blindly accept the established ideology whether spiritual, political or personal in nature. Throughout the history of the world, many strongly held opinions were commonly accepted by the majority of the population such as the idea that black persons or Jews were subhuman, the earth was flat (according to the Bible), a monarchy was the best form of government and women were to be subservient to their husbands in every way. Its very likely that some of peoples strongly held opinions today are as grossly mistaken as well. While some moral opinions are seemingly unchangeable, others are less so. Those of all opinions would be well-served to maintain an open mind to other opinions with regard to questions of morality and a willingness to question their own beliefs. Even if one does not change ones moral views, one will at least better understand ones own moral views and those of others, and be better able to defend ones own views rather than simply being dogmatic (Velasquez, 2002).
The DCT assumes that God created man therefore retains an unconditional entitlement of mans obedience consequently man should act upon Gods commands. If one perceives that an omnipresent God indeed exists and has bestowed upon man commandments to live by, it is only rational that man obeys these laws. Following Gods commandments many times involves making moral decisions based on what is clearly right or wrong. At other times, right and wrong cannot be defined in simple terms of black and white. Life choices are sometimes complex and the answer to a question of Gods law and morality are ambiguous and hidden within shades of grey. Sometimes, adhering to the DCT means deciding which of Gods commands to follow when they conflict. As an example, what if a womans husband demands that she get an abortion? Should she follow the command to submit to her husband, or the command not to kill? (Fackler/Bunn, 1998). This is a realistic dilemma that women face every day in a country that allows legalized murder of its youngest citizens.
Mans Law Permits Abortion
Various studies through the years have proven that abortion is an abhorrent physical, psychological and moral option for all concerned yet the right to choose still exists because the Supreme Court has stated it cannot determine for certain when life begins. We have been at a 30-plus year impasse since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 which legalized abortion in the U.S because the court system is unclear regarding when human life begins. The Roe decision invalidated any state law that restricted a woman to have an abortion or a doctor to perform an abortion during the first three months (first trimester) of a pregnancy. It also restricted abortions during the second-trimester unless a womans health was in jeopardy. ( Roe v. Wade 1997).
Two questions arise when debating whether the Constitution legally protects a womans right to have an abortion performed. The first involves reasoning whether the fundamental interests of women are affected by the restricting of abortion. The other inquires if laws preventing legal abortions are justified even if the Constitution does in fact address this issue. Answering the first question is rather simple. Courts regularly hear cases so as to decide whether or not the rights of an individual are protected by the Constitution. If courts are engaged in recognizing if the fundamental rights of individuals are protected, then the personal interest of a woman being forced by the government to have an unwanted child certainly applies. Though the constitutionality regarding the Roe decision can be easily argued, it must be acknowledged that since the issue remains intensely controversial more than 30 years after, opponents may be justified in believing the right to an abortion should not be thought of as fundamental. Fundamental rights reprove basic truths in the functioning of a society. Rulings preventing the segregation of the races are now accepted by the public therefore can be viewed as fundamental rights. Abortion rights do not enjoy this universally held view so it is fair to debate the issue even on legal grounds though that is seldom the arena for debate. It is understood, however, that the majority of Americans do agree with the Courts decision and believe it to be a fundamental right.
Gods Law Disallows Abortion
The Bible does not provide any assistance to the debate as it does not speak specifically of abortion, a practice that was seen as unthinkable even in those barbaric times and childlessness was seen as a curse (Anderson. 2003). From the perspective of the religious ideologue, the life of a human, from the time of conception, should be considered equally as viable as any individual. Consequently, the right of life as well as the social definition regarding right and wrong types of deaths should apply to potential lives which possess a future value of life, the same as any living person. Denying a being their future is murder. Unnatural, premature deaths that are considered justifiable by society include those that occur during war-time in addition to those that result from mercy killings and the death penalty. Outside of these instances, society generally acts to protect all life even animals that have at least a chance of future potential. This is demonstrated by the life-saving techniques employed without question or hesitation in the case of people who wanted to end their life. Society will not allow it because it is simply wrong by any standard to end a life with potential. Pro Choice advocates counter this seemingly universal truth by saying just because a person has great potential doesnt mean that they will achieve greatness in life therefore a potential life is not yet a life. They also argue that because a fetus is unconscious disqualifies it for being considered a person. Of course, emergency medical treatment is administered to unconscious people in an effort to save their life. Society mourns the death of the young more so than the old. Taking the life of a potential person who possesses an inherent value of life and is of the very youngest of society is in opposition to this widely accepted societal value. (Marquis, 1989).
The majority of Americans are Christians. The majority of Americans also are in favor of legal abortions. If a democratic government sanctions an act, its society sanctions it as well. In essence, many Christians are endorsing murder in opposition to Gods Constitution, the Ten Commandments. The Divine Command theory embraces a simple concept, that the moral rules contained in Gods Word are good, true, and obligatory. (Fackler, 1998). Gods rules, as written within the texts of the Bible, are the paramount, if not the only dependable method by which Christians should seek answers to questions regarding morality. According to the theory, Christians are presented practically no situation in life that justifies disregarding scriptural doctrine. In the Book of John, Jesus said, If you love me, you will obey what I command. (Holy Bible, 1999). In the Book of Matthew, Jesus reinforced this statement. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. (Holy Bible, 1999). Those Christians who adhere to the DCT trust God and obey his words even when this route seemingly will lead to less than desirable outcomes. (Fackler/Bunn, 1998).
Mans Law Excludes Abortion
The Constitution does not directly address the issue but simply because the word abortion does not appear, the Constitution is still the origin for legal precedence for this issue. The liberal interpretation of the Constitution in this matter (7-2 in favor) is at the heart of the legal issue. Because the Supreme Court has become more conservative in terms of overall ideology since 1973, many believe that soon this interpretation will more closely resemble Justice Rehnquists dissenting opinion regarding Roe v. Wade. There are those that argue that if the courts cannot decide when life begins and because the Roe decision has yet to be overturned even though it was not based on a solid constitutional reasoning, then the Congress, not the courts should decide matters such as this which have weighty moral implications.
The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence were written by men who believed in God, men who thought prayer was important, that life was sacred, and that many of our current-day controversial practices, such as homosexuality and abortion, were biblically and morally reprehensible. The reality that a few of our Founding Fathers were deists, rather than theists, does not change the fact that these documents were written by and for a generally theistic people. According to John Adams, Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. (Beach, 1998). Today, however, popular culture has forgotten that our nation was founded, in large part, on Christian principles, and that the Constitution was written for a moral and religious people. We are, of course, free to practice our own religious beliefs, but our present society has become obsessed with the idea of tolerance. Everything is to be tolerated with the exception of Christianity.
Legal abortion enables fathers to force their will on mothers. Some women resort to abortion in desperation because they fear continued abuse. That fear is substantiated as women who refuse to abort have been subjected to serious abuses which have escalated to murder if the women still persists in her refusal. Murder is the leading cause of death for pregnant women and for what other motive could there be? Sixty-four percent of women surveyed report being pressured by others into unwanted abortions. (Reardon, 2002). There is little freedom of choice for women who are experiencing an unwanted pregnancy. The women themselves usually wish to bring their baby to full term. Other powerful influences in her life such as husbands/boyfriends, parents and friends are generally the forces that exact pressures on her to terminate the pregnancy. Most often, the father of the child, not wishing to accept responsibility, may beg or even threaten a woman until she agrees to the abortion. In 95 percent of all cases the male partner played a central role in the decision (Zimmerman, 1977). If the causes and affects of abortion were packaged in any other form, it would be illegal besides simply being immoral and unethical.
Conclusion
It is important that those of each opinion understand the opposing viewpoint if they truly wish to debate the topic rather than simply insist that their own viewpoint is correct. Only in this way can the national debate proceed with any hopes of resolution. If both sides understand the issues of the other, the emotional aspect can be lessened and replaced with reasonable conversations. The ideological divide will never be bridged but the debate whether abortion should be legal or not is a matter for the courts, as are all legal matters. Roe v. Wade was and is a case that brings out emotions on both a moral and legal basis. The Supreme Courts decision cannot be called a mistake like the critics call it unless those critics are willing to totally ignore legal procedure and the words of the Constitution itself. Abortion is legal and considered a right guaranteed by the Constitution but an appointment or two to the Supreme Court could swiftly take away the right at the federal level.
Those opposed to legal abortions are also in the same camp that opposes programs that aid the impoverished and abused children who are the result of unwanted pregnancies. They point to Christian morals and family values as justification for the loss of liberty, discrimination of the poor and the increased cases of injured women. The first flaw in the pro-life argument is referring to the zygote, embryo and fetus as simply the fetus. Various valid opinions are espoused as to the exact point where life begins in biological terms, but those of the pro-life opinion dismiss science in their argument and concentrate on the morality of abortion based on the prevailing value of life giving examples of unrelated life and death situations. They believe that the potential life growing in a woman is more important than that womans rights to make decisions regarding her body. They may have a morally just position but have also disregarded the law of the land in addition to science in the formulation of this opinion.
Beach, W. (1988). Christian Ethics in the Protestant Tradition. Atlanta: John Knox Press.
Fackler, Mark & Bunn, Christopher. (1998). Is It Ever Right To Do Wrong? Making ethical decisions when commandments seem to collide. Discipleship Journal. Vol 104
Felis, George. (2007). What Atheism Isnt, Part 2: Atheism and Morality. The New Humanist Magazine. 2007
Holy Bible (King James Version). (1999). New York: American Bible Society.
Marquis, Don. (1989). An Argument that Abortion is Wrong. Northern Arizona University.
Reardon, David C. (2002). Aborted Women, Silent No More. Springfield, IL: Acorn Books. pp. 11-21.
Roe v. Wade: 1973. (1997). Womens Rights on Trial. 1st Ed. New York: Thompson Gale.
Velasquez, Manuel. (2002). Philosophy: A Text with Readings. New York: Wadsworth Publishing Co. Chapter 7, Section 4.
Zimmerman, Mary K. (1997). Passage Through Abortion. New York: Prager Publishers.
Abortion remains a contentious issue that continues to attract the attention of many stakeholders, ethicists, and scholars. Within the past decade, numerous thoughts, principles, and laws have emerged that seek to either support or oppose this practice. Pope John Paul II is one of the global leaders whose contribution to the topic cannot be ignored. This paper tries to examine the abortion ethical dilemma from the lens of the Popes thoughts and proposals.
Explanation of Quotes
In most of his works, Pope John Paul II identified abortion as malpractice that had the potential to threaten the future of human life. Towards the end of the 20th century, new ideas and thoughts began to emerge in different parts of the world since many people wanted to have this malpractice legalized. In the quote call things by their proper name , Paul II is trying to guide Christian believers and his followers to become more practical and considerate when addressing the challenges and debates in their lives. For instance, the leader believes that individuals commit a serious mistake by claiming that an unborn child does not have the physical body, abilities, and faculties associated with human beings. Those who decide to abort do so trying while trying to rely on the existing laws and provisions that seem to allow them to pursue their natural freedoms. However, Paul II believes that any act of abortion is equivalent to murder. He goes further to assert that any other reason or opinion that different people present on this subject is wrong and deceptive. This kind of knowledge is what compels him to encourage more people to start calling things by their real names without the need to identify new opinions or arguments to justify their actions or goals.
The second quote focuses on the question of evil and good. The best interpretation for this thought can be obtained by examining the Popes views from a Christian perspective. Using this idea, this religious leader tries to caution those who try to change situations and deceive others in an effort to pursue what would be wrong or unacceptable in the eyes of God. Human beings are created in His image and they should be on the frontline to be part of His entire creation and protect life whenever possible. According to Pope Paul II, those who go further to put darkness for light will face Gods wrath during Judgment Day. This kind of malpractice appears to echo what this leader calls structure of sin . Many people have become victims of this form of disobedience since they pursue it as a way of maximizing their own experiences and gains while ignoring the life of the unborn child. When more individuals continue to be part of this sin, chances are high that they will be taking themselves closer to Gods wrath. The decision to allow abortion is, therefore, what Paul II refers to as calling evil good. Such malpractice is also against the teachings of Christ and Gods commandments.
Agreement with Popes Quotes
The selected quotes offer new insights and thoughts that human beings can utilize to get a new understanding of the abortion question. In the first one, Paul II encourages his readers and followers to embrace a new practice of identifying and defining actions appropriately. This kind of assertion is acceptable since people tend to consider loopholes and gaps in society to pursue actions that might be naturally wrong or unacceptable. For this kind of knowledge, I would agree with Paul II because any act of abortion is equivalent to murder. I understand that human life will only start at conception. This kind of assertion or fact explains why it is the responsibility of all stakeholders to take good care of the unborn child whose life is just taking shape. Without such a process, the entire human race would be at risk. The introduction of new laws aimed at promoting abortion or allowing people to make their personal choices regarding this question is erroneous.
The ideas of Paul II are relevant since they resonate with my understanding and stand when it comes to the abortion question. Fathers who might not be in a position to raise the targeted child need to consider new approaches to address their problems. Similarly, victims of rape or abuse who end up conceiving should understand that the life of the unborn child is different from their own. As part of the wider creation, they are mandated to offer the best care and protection to babies before and even after birth. Legislators who go further to implement new laws aimed at legalizing abortion should also be aware of the opinions and views Paul II presents. When all people accept the fact that abortion amounts to murder, the global community will be halfway towards addressing this ethical dilemma.
In the second quote, Paul II manages to outline the mistakes of those who deceive others to abort and the rewards they stand to reap after the end of the world. From a religious perspective, the message is clear that human beings should be ready to use the natural gift of knowledge to differentiate what is evil from good. They will need to examine their positions in the wider system as part of Gods creation. This observation will guide them to accept that Gods intentions and expectations. Consequently, they should be ready to protect all creatures, support one another, and follow the presented commandments and teachings. Focusing on the abortion debate, it is evident that the leader tries to encourage more Christians to stop disguising evil acts as holy or permissible behaviors.
Similarly, the notions of ethics and morality reveal that abortion is wrong since it does not promote the welfare and happiness of the entire human race. Instead, it results in death and makes it impossible for unborn children to experience life in accordance with Gods plan. Personality, I support Paul II since his suggestions are acceptable and resonate with both religious and ethical values. Human beings are required to consider such attributes to redefine abortion as murder and implement personal philosophies and strategies that can protect life despite the existing circumstances.
Conclusion
The above discussion has identified abortion as one of the controversial issues facing humanity today. The presence of divergent views promoting and condemning malpractice has made it an ethical dilemma. Fortunately, the quotes and arguments Paul II offers are informative and capable of guiding more people to tackle this question successfully. Personally, I support this religious leaders views and encourage more individuals to consider new ways of avoiding abortion to protect the integrity of human life.
Despite the fact that abortion is legal in most countries, society strongly condemns such a phenomenon as abortion. In the womb, modern medicine identifies abnormalities and pathologies in fetuses that are incompatible with life or do not enable them to function properly. Then the question of termination of pregnancy is posed, which is a controversial and topical issue for doctors and pregnant women. Thus, abortions should be legal when medically necessary.
Arguments for Termination of Pregnancy
There are medical reasons for terminating a pregnancy, irrespective of its term, if pregnancy and childbirth can worsen the womans condition or abnormalities in fetal development is detected. Medical indications for surgery include conditions such as abnormalities, fetal development, ectopic pregnancy, active tuberculosis, severe mental disorders, and the last stages of cancer (Davis et al. 278).
Therefore, if childbirth or pregnancy could result in death or irreversible changes in the persons health, an abortion is the only way to save the womans life. Additionally, in cases where an ultrasound scan puts congenital severe fetal abnormalities, it is advisable to terminate the pregnancy on the recommendation of a specialist. This is because infants may be born dead, with incurable diseases, or even frozen in the womb, which will also require the purification of the female body (Davis et al. 278). Hence, through abortion, women have the opportunity to save their own health and avoid the anguish and suffering of having a child with pathologies.
The next argument is that medical indications for abortion are not the primary reason for abortion. In 2018, in 2.6% of cases, the cause of pregnancy termination was medical indications, according to WHO (Davis et al. 279). Consequently, more than 97% of patients are not related to medical indications, which is why the validity of such abortions can be doubted (Davis et al. 280). Moreover, in case of fetal death, abnormalities, ectopic pregnancy, or harm to the womans health, it is obligatory to follow the recommendations of doctors who objectively assess the situation. Accordingly, abortion for medical reasons does not appear frequently; thus, it can be justified from the point of view of the necessity and not a high occurrence.
Counterargument
Artificial termination of pregnancy often leads to severe, at times irreversible, consequences. It is essential to emphasize that infertility is not the only complication. There may also be a case of pregnancy failure, disorders of the menstrual cycle, and chronic inflammatory processes of the genitals. Especially high probability of adverse effects after the termination of the first pregnancy at a young age, the risk of complications in such females ranges from 50 to 60% (Hendricks 249). Hence, supporters of the prohibition of medical abortions justify their position by the harm to the womans body and the progression of infertility.
Argument Against Contrargument
Independent of the cause, premature termination of pregnancy is stressful for the body, but pathological reasons can justify it. Meanwhile, the probability of a woman developing infertility after an abortion is not significantly greater; only 5-7% of all abortions end in infertility (Baumgarten et al. 295). Evidence will indicate that after an abortion, a female resumes their menstrual cycle, and ovulation occurs in just a couple of weeks. Hence, individual factors influence the development of complications and the inability to obtain a pregnancy, but this risk is justified.
Conclusion
Therefore, abortion is a controversial topic, but operating on medical grounds should be permitted. This is because it ensures the right to life and health of females; considering fetal abnormalities, women can also make a choice or give birth to a sick child. Moreover, arguments about womens deteriorating health and not being unable to become pregnant again is not defensible given the risks to the life of the woman and child in carrying, giving birth to, and raising a newborn. Accordingly, it is critical to consider a females health and fetal development when deciding.
Works Cited
Baumgarten, Heron, et al. Fetal Surgery. Pediatric Clinics, vol. 66, no. 2, 2019, pp. 295-308. Web.
Davis, Anne, et al. Trends in Gestational Age At Time of Surgical Abortion for Fetal Aneuploidy and Structural Abnormalities. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 216, no. 3, 2017, pp. 278-281. Web.
Hendricks, Perry. Even If the Fetus Is Not a Person, Abortion is Immoral: The Impairment Argument. Bioethics, vol. 33, no. 2, 2019, pp. 245-253. Web.
Mary Ann Warrens paper, On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion, presents a discussion of the justification of a womans right to abortion. The author begins by discussing how the main arguments of abortion rights advocates boil down to several things (Warren, 1973). They mention either the death rate from illegal abortions or the problems of women raising an unwanted child. People who oppose the legal and morally justifiable status of abortion say that a child can be considered a human being from the first days of fetal formation and that abortion is murder. Mary Ann Warren, in her article, sets out to investigate whether there is such an argument that justifies the moral legality of abortion yet is irrelevant to the biological controversy.
The author believes that when debating the topic of abortion, it is advisable to look for arguments other than the fact that a human being cannot be considered a human being in the fetal state. In the first section of the paper, Mary Ann Warren (1973) suggests that it is impossible to establish whether abortion is morally permissible, provided one accepts that the fetus is a being with a full right to life. With such a condition, there is not a strong enough argument for those skeptical about the morality of abortion compared to a discussion where the fetus is not taken as a human being. It is therefore impossible to avoid the question of whether a fetus has the same right to life as a more evolved human being.
Having found this out, the author answers this question by arguing that the fetus cannot be considered a member of the moral community, that is, a set of beings with full and equal moral rights. This is because the fetus is not a person who has no rights and freedoms or opinions (Warren, 1973). Personality, not genetic humanity, is the basis for membership in this community. On this basis, removing a fetus from a womans body cannot be called human murder. Thus, even though the biological question has not been avoided in the debate, arguments can still be found to prove that abortion is a morally legal act and a right of every woman.
The artificial termination of pregnancy is a pressing issue in biomedical ethics. The procedure of abortion is usually performed during a gestation period of up to twenty weeks, according to contemporary medical standards (Watson). The permissibility and restrictions of abortion are hotly debated topics. Essential moral considerations include whether life is disrupted during the abortion and how the embryos interests connect to those of a woman (Munson). Termination of pregnancy is a womans strictly personal matter in which no one should intervene, or it alludes to moral concerns that are open to public debate and possible condemnation. Abortion is complicated since it has demographic relevance, political and social importance, and a significant ethical component.
Peoples attitudes against abortion currently fall into three categories. The first group of individuals believes that abortion is ethically lawful at any stage of the embryo and fetus development (Watson). The second viewpoint holds that abortion is morally acceptable only during the early stages of fetal development. Supporters of the third position think that abortion is a form of killing a person since the embryo (and fetus) is a person with the right to life from the moment of conception.
Both proponents and opponents of abortion acknowledge that a fetus is a human. At the same time, they want to consider if this ethically means that the embryo is already human. Proponents of abortion legalization make a number of points. The most important is that, even though the embryo is a human being, it is difficult to ignore the distinction between the embryo and the person (Munson). The embryo is considered to be physiologically and socially reliant on its mother since it cannot develop independently, autonomously, or outside the mothers body but must spend nine months inside her (Munson). It is not yet autonomous prior to birth, and the act of birth defines when it becomes independent. As a result, a childs delivery marks the start of a persons life.
The concept that the fetus should be considered a human being is the most crucial part of the anti-abortion argument. The scientifical facts, such as having intracerebral activity and the in-gene primary elements of personality at nine weeks, contribute to the consideration of the fetus as a human being (Watson). As a result, abortion cannot be ethically justified under any circumstances. However, internal divisions are surfacing in the anti-abortion movement as a whole. Even if pregnancy and childbirth are harmful to the mothers life, extreme anti-abortion enthusiasts believe that abortion is unacceptable (Watson). In principle, the moderate view holds abortion to be illegal but accepts it as an exception in circumstances when medical contraindications or rape are involved (Watson). The necessity of taking into account the mothers wishes and interests justifies the acceptance of exceptions.
Despite the fact that abortion has been an issue since prehistoric times, the urgency with which it is discussed remains. The issue of abortion intensifies interpersonal relationships on moral, legal, sociopolitical, theological, and scientific levels. Abortion issues are at the forefront of contemporary ethics. Overall, society has split into several viewpoints, but some internal debates are constantly going on even within them. When examining such a complex issue, it is still pivotal to prioritize a womans individual decision and consider the possible hazards to the mothers physical and mental health.
Works Cited
Munson, Ziad. Abortion politics. John Wiley & Sons, 2018.
Watson, Katie. Scarlet A: The ethics, law, and politics of ordinary abortion. Oxford University Press, 2018.
Access to abortion has been a contentious issue for decades. The reasons why women seek to have an abortion range from health concerns to termination of unwanted or unplanned pregnancies. Regardless of any given explanation, individuals who abort an unborn child are likely to face stigma from friends and families. Governments and health organizations move to control access to abortion led to the emergence of groups and movements supporting and opposing abortion. The liberals oppose the anti-abortionists or conservatives position that limits access to abortion, arguing that the government should not impose values and deprive women right to control their bodies.
The conservatives argue that access to abortion should be restricted because it destroys the fetus, which has full personhood. According to Von Drehle (2021), conservatives consider fetuses or embryos as unborn children. They suggest that a fetus is equivalent to a baby, only that temporal or physical location distinguishes the two and has interest about future. Therefore, the fetus has all legal rights to be protected from destruction like any other person. Abortion also harms the physical and mental health of pregnant women. This conservative argument considers women as mothers from the time of inception. Thus, making an abortion a right is issuing a ticket to breaking motherhood bonds. This perspective portrays restrictions to accessing abortion as measures to promote womens well-being and protect them from deception and exploitation from individuals who provide abortion services (Von Drehle, 2021). Conversely, conservatives indicate that abortion is permissible in circumstances where a womans life is under threat and termination of the pregnancy is the only way of saving her.
The liberals advocate for the preservation of access to abortion because making it illegal is like imposing religious or personal values on people opposing it and denying women rights over their bodies. Indeed, anti-abortionists consider the act of terminating a pregnancy as immoral and ungodly. However, not everyone would have a similar point of view about abortion. Thus, making access to abortion services illegal limits constitutional rights to choosing values to uphold (Steinfels, 2018). Liberals argue that a fetus is not a person and therefore, there it has no moral values. Proponents of abortion contend that the law should not recognize a fetus as a person and abortions morality need to be left to individuals to decide. Restricting access to abortion is also limiting womens jurisdiction over their bodies. Liberals argue that women have the right to decide whether to carry a pregnancy or terminate it, regardless of whether it was planned or unwanted one (Steinfels, 2018). Therefore, preserving access to abortion is upholding womens constitutional rights regarding moral values and control over their bodies.
Personhood is an important concept in the debate about abortion since the latter revolves around whether the fetus has all qualities and rights equivalent to that of a person. The conservatives hold that life starts at conception, assigning a fetus personhood merits. This perspective serves as the foundation for advocating the prohibition of abortion. On the other hand, liberals oppose fetal personhood indicating that a fetus or an embryo is just cells without features of a person. Liberals further assert that law should allow individuals to decide about fetal personhood. The conservatives argument about access to abortion is more plausible than liberals because it emphasizes the necessity of protecting the rights of unborn children and future generations. Limiting access to abortion and allowing it only under special circumstances promotes womens physical and psychological well-being.
Abortions are a complex and hindering issue for women in terms of psychological experiences. The reasons for this lie in the stigmatization of the termination of pregnancy, which affects women when making a decision on an abortion, going through the process, and living after it. Their psychological well-being might be negatively affected by the beliefs of women making an abortion being inferior to an ideal of a woman according to societys perceptions. Another issue regards the unavailability of abortions and the consequences of women being denied in abortions, and the necessity of choice for women to terminate or not terminate a pregnancy.
Stigma is a dynamic process that is continually challenged, not a set of unchanging ideas, attitudes, or traits. Even within certain geographic places, abortion stigmatizes individuals differently, and stigmatizing discourses, and subject positions coexist with normalizing and non-stigmatizing ones. Stigma has infiltrated the popular understanding of abortion, which can offer consistency and weight to the norms that produce stigma, as well as inspire researchers to hunt for stigma even when there isnt any. Goffmans stigma-as-attribute framework has led to a concentration on identifying the consequences of individual-level phenomena, including attitudes, judgments, and emotional reactions to abortion; such studies approach the effects of stigma as if they were stigma itself. Stigmatizing judgments are clearly passed onto persons in the stigma-as-attribute framework, resulting in possession of adversely valued identities. Abortion, on the other hand, is made understandable through a variety of discourses and subject positions. Individuals might be subjected to stigmatizing discourses while simultaneously developing positive identities (Beynon-Jones, 2017). Abortion stigma seems to be a socio-cultural phenomenon linked to the concepts of difference that establish and legitimize power relations.
Stigma is one of several mechanisms by which abortion is rendered invisible, dependent, and disputed. This concept of abortion stigma is purposefully wide in order to account for cultural differences and numerous objects. When making a decision on whether to make an abortion or not, many women are concerned about the social consequences of their actions. They might be worried that they will be judged because of their beliefs based on the societys many beliefs regarding gender standards. There are various researches proving the negative effects of the stigmatization on womens mental health.
Women who are denied in abortion are another group of risk for the negative changes in their mental health. It is proven that women who were denied in an abortion eventually develop higher levels of anxiety (Biggs et al., 2017). Experiences occurring in women who make a decision to make an abortion might hinder them for a long time because of them feeling sadness, grief, and loss after terminating their pregnancy, and some even develop symptoms of depression and anxiety. Yet, these cases are rare, which proves the point of abortions being legally available to women is safe in terms of their mental health after the termination of pregnancy (Reardon, 2018). Besides, it is important to note that most women who developed mental disorders after abortions were prone to such illnesses because of the history of their illness occurring previously in life or genetic predisposition.
Reproductive freedom is an important aspect of society in general. Yet, women confronting inequality in medical services when they cant afford an abortion or it is prohibited in their place of living is still a common occurrence in modern society (Adair & Lozano, 2022). The lack of choice is another hindering factor that might affect the psychological well-being of women as well. Women are also experiencing social problems after abortions. These include employment, discrimination in medical care, and financial issues (Marecek, MacLeod & Hoggart, 2017). Some reported problems in their relationships with the family of origin as well.
Speaking of stigmatization, it is necessary to address the possibilities to cope with the stigma. Womens ability to overcome it is related to many factors, such as social context and a persons own beliefs (Marecek, MacLeod & Hoggart, 2017). It was found that helping women to overcome the stigma was more difficult when they had negative prejudice toward abortions themselves. The other way of coping with the stigma is justifying the choice with the conditions that a woman has to go through during pregnancy and after it. The approach of working with a stigma seems the most appropriate in terms of psychological assistance. The reason for that is the dynamic nature of a stigma and the possibility of changing it towards contents that are more suitable for an individuals psychological well-being.
References
Adair, L., & Lozano, N. (2022). Adaptive choice: Psychological perspectives on abortion and reproductive freedom. Womens Reproductive Health, 9(1), 1-26.
Beynon-Jones, S. M. (2017). Untroubling abortion: A discourse analysis of womens accounts. Feminism & Psychology, 27(2), 225-242.
Biggs MA, Upadhyay UD, McCulloch CE, Foster DG. (2017). Womens mental health and well-being 5 years after receiving or being denied an abortion. A prospective, longitudinal cohort study. JAMA Psychiatry. 74(2):169178.
Marecek, J., Macleod, C., & Hoggart, L. (2017). Abortion embedded and embodied in social relations: challenges for feminist psychology. Feminism & Psychology, 27(2), 133-143.
Reardon D. C. (2018). The abortion and mental health controversy: A comprehensive literature review of common ground agreements, disagreements, actionable recommendations, and research opportunities. SAGE open medicine, 6, 2050312118807624. Web.