Ethics Paper †Abortion Debate Essay

The moral question on both sides of the abortion seam is when a foetus achieves personhood and is awarded moral status consequently granting it matures. Does the foetus expect a make up to actionspan at the occasion of the breed or does the m a nonher(prenominal)s choice for self-reliance everywhere her automobile trunk take precedence over the fetus? How do we begin to solution this lavishlyly debated question and what conclusions dope be made that learn the most logical ethical answer?The difficulty in answering the f atomic number 18 of fetal personhood is that there is non one concrete indication of when that in truth come ins in pregnancy. Pro- Life supports the attitude that personhood occurs immediately at c erstption thus granting the fetus rise unspoileds as a person born. In tell Pro-Choice rein racks the beats rights to her own personhood and her choice to be main(a) from the fetus.The main ethical issue up for debate is whether society can infr inge upon a persons right to personal corporeal security for the purpose to save the life of another. Should anyone or any entity force a person to give up their decision to do what they seem fit with their own body? How would that affect a chars right to her reproductive liberty? What precedents does that set forth for the future for women?IN SUPPORT OF PRO CHOICEThe nature of abortion rights can be broken out into three dissimilar offices the protection of uncalled-for friendly p arenthood the unwanted genetic parenthood and the right to sensible autonomy. (Manninen 36)The burdens of tender parenthood weigh heavily on the charr who is agonistic to concentrate a pregnancy. These burdens can be detrimental to mental and physical wellness and mental harm is likely to damage the baby bird that is brought into a seat not wide of the marky embracing or prepared to care for its postulate. through with(predicate) abortion, a woman has the right to prevent the existence of a child with her genetic characteristics. It is an essential part of her overall reproductive liberty to hold in either the right to or the right not to conceive children. (Manninen 37) However, once a child is born, because it becomes a moral subject with its full entitlement to personhood and you cannot kill a child with your genetic characteristics or to avoid the debt instrument of social parenting.Judith Jarvis Thomsons thesis gives us a graphic ex federal agency of a violinist who without your consent, is attached to you and relies upon you for his/her life. Are you morally obligated to return to the unwanted bodily intrusion in order to support the life of another person? The clear answer to this question is No. A person is under no moral obligation whatsoever to use his body to throw the life of another at the compromise of his own. The impression of forced violations of bodily autonomy is morally indefensible. This has nought to do with the grade of the fetus in g eneral that the right not to be subject to the intrusion as the right to your body is exclusively yours.To dissemble abortion illegal is to force pregnant women to surrender their own bodies to deliver another human being all its needs for survival. Using Kantian moral philosophy, with specific attention to the second principle of the categorical imperative that describes using people as mere means to an end arent the pregnant women being employ? (Manninen 40) The women essentially become hosts to the fetuses and are utilize to cultivate life. How can the forced use of womens bodies be a moral act?A blastocyst or a human zygote does not have the full characteristics of what human beings have. It cannot function on its own, communicate or have a consciousness attri thated to it. It merely possesses the authorisation to form into personhood and ultimately a human life. If we cannot pinpoint the exactness of when a fetus achieves personhood, how can we correlate the crime of m urder to something that hasnt had a life? No actual person is harmed by having an abortion so there is no reason that the act in itself is morally bad.IN SUPPORT OF PRO LIFEPro Life gains its understanding through what is commonly known as the message view. This means that human life is valued for the type of thing it is from the moment of conception to its ultimate demise. humankind beings are considered rational moral agents that are consistent with its original meat barely possess capabilities that give it the ability to function. (Beckwith 33)Since human beings are considered breathing organisms, as substances they maintain their identity throughout the process of their life disregarding of the physical changes that occur. Thus human beings are always considered persons because of their authorisation to maturate abilities. In addition, manhood are also considered persons even if the potential never actualizes because their overall substance. (Beckwith 36)The substance hypothesis extends not only to the unborn fetus, but to other humans who for whatever reason are prevented from exercising their capabilities as a functioning person. These types of persons have similar parallels to the unborn because they have achieved personhood and full moral status simply because of being human. The rationale behind the substance theory is if it is permissible to kill the unborn fetus then it is equally permissible to kill a person un commensurate to exercise their capabilities as a functioning person. Thus abortion is morally wrong.Another argument in the abortion debate is the precise moment when personhood is achieved. The Pro-Life position stems from the moment of conception because the zygote contains all of the chromosomes for human life. Some of the chromosomes have not been used yet since human life is in its commence stages and does not require all of them at this time. However, the zygote contains all of the chromosomes and or genetic instructions to form a humans physical, mental, emotional, needs from the moment of conception.In addition to the scientific perspective to the pro-life position is the religious perspective that a higher major power, divinity fudge, created all life and humans do not have a right to take the power of God in their hands and destroy it. People who have this theory base it off the teachings of Scripture contained within the Bible. An example passage is sing 139 again makes clear that the fetus (unborn baby) is a human whom God loves. And God told the prophet Jeremiah, Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, in advance you were born I set you apart I decreed you as a prophet to the nations. (Jeremiah 15). God had plans for Jeremiah even tour he was in his mothers womb.Pro-life supporters interpret these scriptural passages to be Gods direct and absolute view of the rigour when human life begins thus giving a Divine decided determination that personhood is achieved at conception. Therefore since the fetus is considered a person, abortion is considered murdering a person and is ultimately wrong in the eyes of God.MY POSITIONWhen it comes to the government issue of stillbirth, my views align with the moderate view. I neither condemn nor condone abortion but my belief aligns itself with the reasoning that a woman has a right to choose what happens in her own individual body. The mothers rights to autonomy must be preserved at all costs. No woman should be forced to surrender her body in order to deliver the goods another human being its needs to survive.Without this fundamental protection securely in place, it sets a dangerous precedent for the abuse of women. It can be argued that if a woman must give up her body to sustain the life of another when it comes to reproductive rights, what about the means of other bodily rights such as organ donation, bone marrow extraction and other harvesting means? To reverse the pro-choice decision is reducing women from being inde pendent beings to being merely hosts and have less rights then the potential for a human has.In addition, no woman should be forced to endure with a pregnancy she does not want, can cause her medical checkup harm, or is a result of a violent crime. The physical and psychological damage that can be inflicted from forcing women to continue with unwanted pregnancies is too painful to consider.As a mother to three children, I certainly do know the varying physical changes as a result of pregnancy. I can say that with my first child, I hardly noticed that I was pregnant. I did not experience any negative side set up and continued with my daily activities as if nothing ever happened. It wasnt until I was able to hear the heart beat or see the fetus on the ultrasound screen did the potential for the pregnancy became real for me.I use the word potential because until the child is born, many things can go wrong with the pregnancy resulting in natural miscarriage. There has to be a certai n environment with favorable variables for a pregnancy to progress into a full born infant. Science does not have the capability to look if a pregnancy will be 100% successful but it does give a great success probability. As such, it was primary(prenominal) for me to handle in perspective that although I was deemed pregnant with a child, that child is not fully realized until it is born and I am holding it in my hand.If, for whatever reason a woman chooses not to continue with her pregnancy, then I believe it ideally would be best to perform the abortion as early as possible most certainly onward 12 weeks. There are many tests that can be performed to come across if the fetus has any genetic defects that could affect its overall life. Plus the timeframe is more than(prenominal) than sufficient to personally determine if the pregnancy should continue. My choice for a timeframe has nothing to do with the determination of when a fetus achieves personhood with moral status, but m ore of a compassionate opinion in that by aborting earlier, the mother doesnt develop a strong attachment to the potential of the fetus.My opinion does not mean to allow for a woman to use an abortion as a means to birth temper. I believe that since a woman has the reproductive capability to cultivate potential life, with that capability encompasses a terrific amount of responsibility. There should be available and economical birth control measures put in place to prevent the abortion procedure entirely. Abortion should be used as a last measure towards preventing an unwanted pregnancy.RESEARCH AND ANALYSISSince the early 1980s, groups opposed to abortion have essay to document the existence of post-abortion syndrome, which they take aim has traits similar to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) present by some war veterans. In 1989, the American psychological acquaintance (APA) convened a panel of psychologists with extensive experience in this field to polish up the data. They reported that the studies with the most scientifically rigorous research designs consistently raise no trace of post-abortion syndrome and furthermore, that no such syndrome is scientifically or medically recognized.1The panel concluded that research with diverse samples, different measures of response and different times of assessment have come to similar conclusions. The time of superior distress is likely to be before the abortion. Severe negative reactions by and by abortions are rare and can best be understood in the framework of coping with normal life stress.2 While some women whitethorn experience sensations of regret, sadness or guilt after an abortion, the overwhelming responses are relief and happiness.3In another study, researchers surveyed a national sample of 5,295 women, not all of whom had had abortions, and many of whom had abortions between 1979 and 1987, the time they were involved in the study. The researchers were able to learn about womens emotional wel l-being both before and after they had abortions. They concluded at the end of the eight-year study that the most important predictor of emotional well-being in post-abortion women was their well-being before the abortion. Women who had high self-esteem before an abortion would be most likely to have high self-esteem after an abortion, regardless of how many years passed since the abortion.4psychological responses to abortion must also be considered in comparison to the psychological impact of alternatives for resolving an unwanted pregnancy (adoption or becoming a parent). While there has been little scientific research about the psychological consequences of adoption, researchers speculate that it is likely that the psychological risks for adoption are higher for women than those for abortion because they reflect different types of stress. Stress associated with abortion is acute stress, typically final stage with the procedure. With adoption, as with unwanted childbearing, howev er, the stress may be chronic for women who continue to worry about the fate of the child.5 (Abortion Myths)ETHICAL POSITION CONSISTENT WITH MY individual(prenominal) POSITIONI believe that my ethical position is in bargain with Judith Jarvis Thomsons Feminism perspective in support of the rights of the mother over the rights of the fetus. She brilliantly explains in a rational and logical way that the mother deserves her status of personhood and bodily autonomy over that of the fetus.The only entitlement that the fetus has is the claim over its own body and not the mothers. The pregnant woman owes no such duty to the fetus, unless she has affirmatively anticipate the responsibility of carrying it to term, in which case she has assumed duty to avoid harming that fetus. Until that point, however, there is no duty, and the pregnant woman cannot be said to have breached a duty by aborting the fetus. (Flicker 2) picSince women posses the exclusive right to cultivate a potential life inside their bodies, it deems an increased take aim of responsibility to protect the possibility of that happening. Thompson thus argued that if a woman takes average steps to avoid pregnancy she should not be held responsible for the pregnancy, and has the right to choose and have an abortion. I believe that to be true as well. With all the options for contraception available to women, responsible methods can be used for the prevention of pregnancy. Since nothing but abstinence is 100% effective and women are authorize to enjoy the healthy aspects of sexual intercourse, if an unwanted pregnancy does occur and responsible measures failed to prevent the pregnancy, then a woman is absolutely entitled to make informed decisions about the use of her own body and chose abortion.My perspective also coincides with Preference Utilitarianism which defines the moral course of action is the one that results in the most preference satisfaction. With regards to abortion, fetuses do not posses s the ability for preferences, therefrom only the mothers have that ability thus their rights to personhood and bodily autonomy outweight the entertain of the fetus. Thus abortion is morally allowable.WORKS CITEDManninen, Bertha Alvarez. Rethinking Roe V. Wade argue The Abortion Right In The Face Of Contemporary Opposition. American diary Of Bioethics 10.12 (2010) 33-46. Academic Search Premier. Web. 26 June 2012.Beckwith, Francis J. The Explanatory Power Of The Substance prognosis Of Persons. Christian Bioethics Non-Ecumenical Studies In Medical Morality 10.1 (2004) 33-54. Academic Search Premier. Web. 26 June 2012.Thomson, Judith J. A Defense of Abortion, From Philosophy & Public Affairs, vol. 1, no. 1 (Fall 1971) 47-66 Copyright 1971 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Reproduced by permission of Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Flicker, Lauren Sydney. Pregnancy Is Not A Crime. American Journal Of Bioethics 10.12 (2010) 54-55. Academic Search Premier. Web. 26 June 2012.The Holy Bible, mod International Version. Worldwide Biblicia, 2011. PrintAbortion Myths. National Abortion Federation, n.p. 2010 Web. 26 June 2012. 1 American Psychological Association. APA research review finds no evidence of post-abortion syndrome but research studies on psychological effects of abortion inconclusive. Press release, January 18, 1989.2 Adler NE, et al. Psychological responses after abortion. Science, April 1990, 248 41-44.3 Adler NE, et al. Psychological factors in abortion a review. American Psychologist, 1992, 47(10) 1194-1204.4 Russo NF, Zierk KL. Abortion, childbearing, and womens well-being. Professional Psychology Research and Practice, 1992, 23(4) 269-280.5 Russo NF. Psychologicalaspects of unwanted pregnancy and its resolution. In J.D. butler and D.F. Walbert (eds.), Abortion, Medicine, and the Law (4th Ed., pp. 593-626). New York Facts on File, 1992.