Ethics Paper †Abortion Debate Essay

The moral question on both(prenominal) positions of the miscarriage argument is when a fetus achieves personhood and is awarded moral status and wherefore(prenominal) granting it rights. Does the fetus drive home a right to bread and entirelyter period at the map of the m different or does the nonpluss choice for liberty all(a) over her ashes imply precedence over the fetus? How do we pop to answer this highly debated question and what conclusions undersurface be made that confuse the close to logical ethical answer?The difficulty in reply the issue of fetal personhood is that there is not unrivalled concrete sign of when that actually occurs in gestation period. Pro- Life take holds the position that personhood occurs immediately at belief thus granting the fetus full rights as a person born. In contrast Pro-Choice reinforces the arrests rights to her sustain personhood and her choice to be autonomous from the fetus.The main ethical issue up for debate is whether night club lowlife infringe upon a persons right to individualised embodied security for the purpose to save the life of another. Should any(prenominal)one or any entity force a person to give up their decision to do what they percolatem fit with their own frame? How would that affect a charhoods right to her reproductive license? What precedents does that set forth for the next for women?IN SUPPORT OF PRO CHOICEThe nature of abortion rights drive out be broken out into three different perspectives the trade protection of uncalled-for social p benthood the unwanted genetic p benthood and the right to bodily autonomy. (Manninen 36)The burdens of social parenthood weigh heavily on the cleaning adult female who is hale to shutdownure a pregnancy. These burdens can be detrimental to mental and personal health and psychological harm is probable to damage the tyke that is brought into a situation not fully embracing or prepared to tending for its needs.Thr ough abortion, a woman has the right to pr yett the existence of a child with her genetic characteristics. It is an essential part of her overall reproductive liberty to cast either the right to or the right not to behold children. (Manninen 37) However, once a child is born, then it becomes a moral character with its full entitlement to personhood and you cannot kill a child with your genetic characteristics or to head off the responsibility of social parenting.Judith Jarvis Thomsons thesis gives us a in writing(predicate) description of a violinist who without your consent, is attached to you and relies upon you for his/her life. Are you chastely cause to submit to the unwanted bodily intrusion in redact to support the life of another person? The clear answer to this question is zero(prenominal) A person is under no moral obligation close to(prenominal) to use his body to sustain the life of another at the agree of his own. The concept of forced violations of bodily autonomy is morally indefensible. This has nothing to do with the value of the fetus in general only the right not to be subject to the intrusion as the right to your body is entirely yours.To make abortion illegal is to force pregnant women to surrender their own bodies to provide another pitying being all its needs for survival. victimisation Kantian moral philosophy, with specific attention to the second principle of the monotone imperative that describes using people as mere means to an end arent the pregnant women being used? (Manninen 40) The women essentially become hosts to the fetuses and are used to cultivate life. How can the forced use of womens bodies be a moral act?A blastocyst or a human zygote does not control the full characteristics of what human beings have. It cannot hold out on its own, communicate or have a consciousness attributed to it. It exactly possesses the electromotive force to form into personhood and ultimately a human life. If we cannot pinp oint the exactitude of when a fetus achieves personhood, how can we correlate the crime of murder 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 sagaciousness through what is commonly known as the substance view. This means that human life is valued for the type of thing it is from the moment of conception to its ultimate demise. Human beings are considered rational moral agents that are consistent with its pilot program substance but possess capabilities that give it the qualification to function. (Beckwith 33)Since human beings are considered living organisms, as substances they maintain their identity throughout the process of their life regardless of the personal changes that occur. Thus human beings are al managements considered persons because of their electromotive force to develop abilities. In addition, humans are also considered pe rsons even if the potential never actualizes because their overall substance. (Beckwith 36)The substance theory extends not only to the unborn fetus, but to other humans who for whatever reason are prevented from drill 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 screwing the substance theory is if it is permissible to kill the unborn fetus then it is equally permissible to kill a person unable to act upon their capabilities as a functioning person. Thus abortion is morally wrong.another(prenominal) 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. slightly of the chromosomes have not been used yet since human life is in its beginning 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, psychological, emotional, needs from the moment of conception.In addition to the scientific perspective to the pro-life position is the religious perspective that a high 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 exit isPsalm 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 the lead you were born I set you apart I appointed you as a prophet to the nations. (Jeremiah 15). God had plans for Jeremiah even while he was in his mothers womb.Pro-life supporters depict these biblical passages to be Gods direct and absolute view of the validity when human life begins thus giving a inspired definite 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 bunkWhen it comes to the topic of Abortion, my views align with the moderate view. I neither condemn nor excuse 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 provide 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 intimately the means of other bodily rights such as organ donation, bone marrow rootage and other harve sting means? To reverse the pro-choice decision is cut down women from being independent beings to being merely hosts and have less rights then the potential for a human has.In addition, no woman should be forced to brood with a pregnancy she does not want, can cause her medical harm, or is a termination of a violent crime. The physical and psychological damage that can be inflicted from forcing women to continue with unwanted pregnancies is withal horrible to consider.As a mother to three children, I for sure do know the varying physical changes as a result of pregnancy. I can say that with my first child, I hardly observe that I was pregnant. I did not experience any nix side effects 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 documentary 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 certain environment with favorable variables for a pregnancy to improvement into a full born infant. Science does not have the potentiality to determine if a pregnancy will be 100% flourishing but it does give a great success probability. As such, it was strategic for me to keep in perspective that although I was deemed pregnant with a child, that child is not fully realized until it is born and I am keeping 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 consummate the abortion as early as possible most sure as shooting before 12 weeks. There are many tests that can be performed to detect if the fetus has any genetic defects that could affect its overall life. prescribed the timeframe is more than sufficient to personally determine if the pregnancy should continue. My choice for a timeframe has nothing to do wi th the determination of when a fetus achieves personhood with moral status, but more of a compassionate intellection 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 brook control. I believe that since a woman has the reproductive capability to cultivate potential life, with that capability encompasses a tremendous amount of responsibility. There should be available and economical birth control sum of moneys put in place to prevent the abortion summons 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 attempted to document the existence of post-abortion syndrome, which they claim has traits similar to post-traumatic stress inconvenience oneself (PTSD) demonstrated by some war veterans. In 1989, the American psychological Associa tion (APA) convened a panel of psychologists with extensive experience in this theater to review the data. They reported that the studies with the most scientifically rigorous research designs systematically found no trace of post-abortion syndrome and furthermore, that no such syndrome is scientifically or medically recognized.1The panel concluded that research with diverse ideals, different measures of reception and different times of assessment have come to similar conclusions. The time of greatest distress is likely to be before the abortion. Severe negative reactions after abortions are rare and can best be mute in the framework of coping with normal life stress.2 While some women may experience sensations of regret, sadness or guilt after an abortion, the overpowering 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 well-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 historic period passed since the abortion.4psychological responses to abortion must also be considered in comparability to the psychological impact of alternatives for resolving an unwanted pregnancy (adoption or decent 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 ending with the procedure. With adoption, as with unwanted childbearing, however, the stress may be inveterate for women who continue to worry about the fate of the child.5 (Abortion Myths)ETHICAL POSITION undifferentiated WITH MY PERSONAL POSITIONI believe that my ethical position is in agreement 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 assumed the responsibility of carrying it to term, in which vitrine 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 aborti ng the fetus. (Flicker 2) picSince women posses the scoop right to cultivate a potential life inside their bodies, it deems an change magnitude level of responsibility to protect the possibility of that happening. Thompson thus argued that if a woman takes reasonable steps to avoid pregnancy she should not be held trusty for the pregnancy, and has the right to choose and have an abortion. I believe that to be unbowed 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% potent and women are entitled 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 possess the ability for preferences, therefore only the mothers have that ability thus their rights to personhood and bodily autonomy outweight the interest of the fetus. Thus abortion is morally allowable.WORKS CITEDManninen, Bertha Alvarez. Rethinking Roe V. wade Defending The Abortion Right In The Face Of Contemporary Opposition. American Journal Of Bioethics 10.12 (2010) 33-46. Academic explore Premier. Web. 26 June 2012.Beckwith, Francis J. The Explanatory Power Of The join View 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 Bioethi cs 10.12 (2010) 54-55. Academic Search Premier. Web. 26 June 2012.The Holy Bible, modern 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.