Sunday, May 26, 2019

Ethical Analysis of Abortion

P. Ruiz Stevens Phil 3340-106 12/5/11 Ethical Analysis of Abortion Abortion could not be respectablely warrant because it is killing an innocent human being. It is arguable that a right to an abortion is a right to control ones body and the death of fetus is an unavoidable consequence of choosing not to continue a pregnancy. That people get some claim to mortalal, bodily autonomy must be regarded as first harmonic to the conception of any ethical codeal, democratic, and free society. Given that autonomy exists as an ethical necessity, the question becomes how far the autonomy exists.If a woman consented to sex and/or didnt properly use contraception, accordingly she knew pregnancy might result. Being pregnant means having a new life-time growing inside. Whether the fetus is a person or not and, whether the state takes a position on abortion or not, its arguable that a woman has some sort of ethical obligation to the fetus. Most debates on the ethics of abortion focus on wheth er the fetus is a person. Even if it is not a person, however, this doesnt mean it suffert have any moral standing.Maybe this obligation isnt strong comely to eliminate abortion as an option, but it may be enough to limit when abortion can be ethically chosen or justified. According to the best interest principle, the best interest would be to have the bollix so it can live a long and fulfilling life. It is argued that in these tragic cases the great rate of the mental health of a woman who becomes pregnant as a result of rape or incest can be safe-guarded by abortion. It is also that a pregnancy caused by rape or incest is the result of a grave injustice and that the victim should not be obligated to carry the fetus to viability.This would keep reminding her of the violence for nine months and it would increase her mental anguish. It is reasoned that the value of womans mental health is greater than the value of the fetus. In addition, it is maintained that the fetus is an aggr essor against the womans integrity and personal life it is only just and morally defensible to repel an aggressor even by killing him if that is the only way to defend personal and human values. It is conclude then, that the abortion is justified in these cases.According to the best interests principle, in this case it might be ok for the mother to abort the fetus since she might end up resenting the fetus later in life. If life begins at conception, then it follows that all fertilized eggs are morally important. However the problem with that is that when one attempts to have children though normal reproduction it is estimated that only 50 to 60 percent of conceptions advance to beyond twenty weeks of gestation. Of the pregnancies that are lost, 75% represent a failure of implantation and are therefore not realized as clinical pregnancies . (Norwitz, E.R. . Implantation and the survival of early pregnancy. The New England Journal of Medicine vol. 34508 Nov. 2001 1400-1408) This indicates that the decision to attempt to have children leads to the death of many fertilized eggs, which, according to the pro-life position, are fully significant individuals. The death of these eggs is not justifiable the only motivation is to have children. some other objection to this argument would be what if the baby is malformed? We should not kill an unhatched baby to alleviate the suffering of the mother any more then we should kill her infant to alleviate her suffering.Neither should we commit an abortion of a malformed fetus to prevent his or her suffering later in life. Being disable is not a capital crime. The intentional destruction of health is not compassionate and it is not healthcare is it assault. We must not be swayed from our pro-life ethic by stirred up appeals that admittedly swell our eyes with tears. Truth and compassion prevent us from this fatal compromise. We must respond to all tragic mint of pregnancy from the unshakeable foundation of two indisp utable premises human life begins at conception, and it is always wrong to intentionally to kill an innocent human being.The unborn childs right to life and liberty is given by his or her creator, not by his parents or by the state. The right to life is untransferable that is, not to be trespassed upon another. In tragic circumstances such as rape or incest, we sine qua non to care for both the mother and her unborn baby. We want to relieve the suffering of the mother and her unborn baby. It is never right to intentionally kill an innocent human being, even if it does relieve anothers emotional or physical suffering. It is not up to a vote, and our obligation to submit unto divine judgments does not sway with our circumstances

No comments:

Post a Comment