|
|
A question about abortions has not been such an important ethics issue until modern medicine could provide relatively safe procedure of abortion; and it is only now, in the last decades, when people starting paying so much thorough attention to this question.
There are three main positions on a question about abortions. On one part there are supporters of "saving lives" which want to forbid abortions at all circumstances: they suppose that the government has no right to encourage death of embryo, and legalize abortions. There are as well the supporters of "free choice": they consider that a law should not limit freedom of choice for a mother and it is up to a pregnant woman to decide whether she wants to keep a baby. Intermediate position occupy those, who consider abortion allowed only in certain cases (for example, when pregnancy is dangerous for mother' life or is a result of rape), and also those, who suppose that the abortion should not be the main method of controlling birth-rate.
If absolute truths exist, it is logical to assume that there are absolute truths for everyone; otherwise it wouldn't be an absolute truth.
If it is wrong to kill other human beings, what IS a human? Biologically humans are made when the egg with 23 chromosomes joins a sperm with 23 chromosomes; this creates a fertilised egg called a zygote, which has 46 chromosomes. Therefore this is the beginning of life. The egg by itself is not alive and the sperm by itself is not alive. Life can only come into existence when the sperm meets the egg and develops. Everyone in the world is unique and science tells us this uniqueness was formed mile-seconds after conception. The unique DNA holds the complete characteristics of the future baby, child, teenager and old man. For the fetus, the baby and the old man are one in the same DNA. Therefore from the moment of conception the complete characteristic's of what we will be is established.
Defendants of abortion disagree with the premises that the fetus is a human being from the moment of conception. Therefore this statement suggests a person's rights only begin after birth. This statement therefore is saying a fetus in its first weeks has the same rights as a fetus hours before birth. However how many people would accept to aborting a baby just before birth? Though according to the pro-abortionist the fetus is only a bit of tissue till its birth when it becomes a person with rights.
However to determine the moral status of abortion you must distinguish what attributes are needed to be a member of the moral community, what does it mean to be a person with rights? These are moral entities capable of respecting and inventing moral rights. To be morally human there are certain traits that must be present such as sentience, emotionality, reason and self-awareness. Therefore you can spot species, which deserve moral respect from these traits. Thus, for abortion to be wrong you must prove whatever is genetically human to also be morally human.
In normal circumstances it seems absurd to pick and choose infants who can live or die which could be argued have the same moral standing as fetus's or animals. Bearing in mind this a different approach is needed, this approach regards the question of whether the fetus deserves the right to life. Fetus's will become human and develop and grow into sentient creatures therefore having dispositions like ours, so does this mean they deserve the same chance as us? The will to live is strong for life is sweet. In the same way a fetus or infant whether unconscious or not deserves a chance to experience future consciousness for no one would like their future conscious or the chance to have a future consciousness prematurely eliminated.
Some have argued that contraception is denying a potential FLO when conception is possible. However since at the time of conception there is no individual to be harmed, there is no entity with a FLO, there is just millions of possible potential FLO but nothing with an actual one. For in the case of contraception nothing has been harmed therefore there was no potential suffering.
Even if life begins at conception it does not necessarily follow that abortion is morally impermissible. Some believe a women's right to decide is stronger than a fetus's right to life and that to deny a women the choice of abortion is to deny her the right to control her own body. I would like to suggest that this is not an acceptable argument in the debate about abortion because there is a different duty in sustaining life and looking after new life, which originates in you.
This analogy is trying to distinguish whether people who oppose abortion will make an acceptation, if the conception was due to rape and therefore as the violinist analogy puts forward, the participant was unwilling. Therefore do some people have a less of a right to life than others? If anyone is going to be killed as a result of rape, surely that should be the rapist?! A pro-abortionist could argue that the mother is the innocent party and therefore is being punished through the conception. Again the question comes down to the premises of whether a right to life is greater than the right to choose. However just because a fetus is down to rape doesn't make that new life any less important - it is still a life.
Therefore this leads us to the question; can we use a person who is less valuable to society in order to sustain the life of someone who brings more value to society, such as use murderers and rapists in this way and their organs? The question that raises is, what human has the right to decide who lives or dies or how you use your body. There is a difference in sacrificing yourself to SUSTAIN existing life and sacrificing yourself to KEEP new life. Existing life was their before you decided or were forced to sustain it but new life originates in the person and wasn't around before.
The issue is complicated if the mother's life is in danger as a result of the pregnancy. If we conclude that all have a right to life, can we add to the mother's righte to life the right to decide? There is no doubt the mother unlike the fetus has the opportunity to decide and if she is acting in a way as to save herself, she is acting in self-defence.
Human logic can dictate that abortion could be justified in extreme circumstances although should not be used constantly as a form of contraception. From the moment of conception the DNA cells have divided into areas and the characteristics of that life has been established. In the eyes of God therefore it has been given the breath of life. |
| Author: Sharon White |
| |
Author Bio:
The article was produced by the member of masterpapers.com. Sharon White has many years of a vast experience in Essay Writing and custom essays writing consulting. Get free samples of essays and courseworks and buy essays . |
| This article can be searched using: womens health care, womens health issues, womens health research |
|
 |
|
| |
Related Articles |
| |
Does Consumption Of Herb Astragalus Root Really Affect Your Breast Size?
|
| |
Online Pharmacy Medication: Best Option for Your Health Care
|
| |
Gastric Bypass Surgery - A Mortality Rate to Be Scared Of?
|
| |
What Are Liquid Colloidal Minerals?
|
| |
Natural Home Remedies for Acne, Arthritis, Backache, Obesity, Stress and Many Ailments
|
| |
Menopause Information: How to Live Longer, Healthier and Happier
|
| |
Begin a Cardiac Rehabilitation Program For a Heart Healthy Lifestyle
|
| |
5 Easy Tips for Weight Loss
|
| |
Risperdal Side Effects: Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome NMS
|
| |
Benefits of Exercise
|
| |
|
|
|
