essay

Hui Wu 10054275

Composition 1 1031 Section 75

William Allred

November 29, 2016

My Views on Abortion from the Perspective of Ethics

Abortion is a hot topic in postmodern bioethics and a common issue in modern society. Although abortion does not trigger controversy and opposition in many countries, in Europe, especially in the United States, the debate on abortion is very intense. On one hand, some people believe that human life begins at the moment the mother’s fertilization, and each life is sacred, so they are in favor of focusing on life and therefore strongly oppose abortion; others believe that abortion is a woman's free choice and a woman's right, so they are in favor of putting emphasis on selection, thus supporting abortion. (Callahan, 1970) Each side persists on their own views and is neck and neck, failing to reach a consensus. From the focus of debate of both sides, we can see that abortion is essentially a key issue concerning on "what is human being", and involves in how people understand human life and the moral status, so researches and investigations on this issue are significant.

Conservatives mainly consist of Catholics and right-wingers in protestants, and they are opposed to abortion. They generally resort to the theory of "sanctity of life" but in this paper, I focus on their philosophical opinions on abortion. (Clark, 1969) The essence of life is fully recognized that fertilized eggs, embryos and even infants belong to individual category. They develop in an ordinary process and genetic science confirms that the fetus has a human gene, so its nature is rational, thus it has personality from its taking shape and should be given the right to life. They believe abortion means murder, so it can not be allowed.

Centrists point out that life begins at a certain stage of pregnancy and the fetus gradually acquires its life right at a certain stage of pregnancy. In terms of this stage, they have different views. It can be divided into three kinds: birth, viability, fetal movement. Regard birth of the fetus as a dividing line seems to be the most obvious: it is given right to life as soon as it was born but it is believed that the mature fetus actually has no difference with newborn babies. (Thomson, p.47-66) Determining it’s life and death only by its being in or out of the womb is extremely unreasonable. The reason why people would regard birth as a dividing line, mainly relate to our compassion. Compared with lives that we can see or hear, we may not feel so sorry for the death of the fetus that we have never met. Survival ability depends on how much time fetus can survive outside the womb. However, this dividing line is also problematic because it varies form different locations and different times. There exist differences between backward and developed areas and ancient and modern societies, so this division is unreasonable. (Petchesky, 1986) In short, the centrists failed to carve out a convincing line to demonstrate whether the fetus has the right to life.

Liberals believe that the fetus at any stage of pregnancy does not have the right to life, so abortion is permitted. They believe that fetus is not a person, if you want to regard it as a person or with a moral personality, there are some specific conditions. Some pointed out that having a moral personality should meet the following requirements: consciousness, reasoning ability, the ability to spontaneous action and communication, self-concept or self-consciousness. Lacking of any one of them, it can be called personality. And some other liberals argue that rights are connected with desire, and there exist connections between desires that life has the ability to hold and the desires that is believed to hold. This desire shows that a life at least should have rationality or self-consciousness. Therefore, to become a human or possess moral personality requires for self-consciousness or rationality. Rationality is the basis of right and one must be rational to claim the right. Fetus at any stage of pregnancy do not have rationality, so the fetus can not be regarded as human. As the right to life is one of the human rights, the fetus dose not have.

Christians believe God has his own will for everything happened, and abortion is the same. Biblical principle is not to murder life, because it is God's commandments. As mentioned earlier, since the fetus is a person, abortion means murdering, therefore contrary to God’s will. (Philip, p.187) From the current situation, this phenomenon can be divided into therapeutic abortion and non-therapeutic abortion. The former refers to that in particular cases, the fetus would influence or do spiritual harm to the mother. It is generally accepted by the church. But how to define the therapeutic abortion and non-therapeutic abortion now becomes a issue.

Islamic laws ban partial birth abortion to protect unborn new life and stop some doctors who do not appreciate God’ blessings. They believe they are like ignorant people in ancient times. Whether after birth or before birth, babies are defenseless without making faults, killing them astray behavior is a sin, and Allah will punished them. Forcing a pregnant women to have an abortion is a big sin, because the lives of children do not begin from it was born. Before birth abortion also equals to killing a people.

Buddhists’ views on abortion are scattered inside the Buddhist missionary content. It defines abortion as a kind of killing and a serious violation of the rules and prohibitions of Buddhism, so abortionists and those assisting abortions will suffer serious retributions. And in the Buddhist doctrine, the abortion violates the capital crime, which is the most serious sin in the Five Disciplines. Overall, Buddhists believe that the fetus should be regarded as a life from the start of the formation of a fertilized egg, and doctors along with parents are killers if they perform abortion.

Man is born equal, but he is everywhere in chains. People are free, freedom in the legal term is the only right human inherited, and real freedom and responsibility can not be separated. Generally speaking, freedom is inherited. Freedom is independent of the will of others and naturally relative. In other words, freedom and rights, relatively speaking have limits. (Quay, p.395) And at the same time, each limit is specific boundaries and which are subjected to internal and external constraints. Freedom means not only individuals to have the opportunity to choose and bear the burden of choice, but also means that he must bear the consequences of their actions and accept praise or condemn of others. Therefore even if the corresponding limit should be exerted to freedom of abortion, such restrictions itself should be limited.

Unrestricted abortion freedom will violate the right to life. For the protection for fetus’ right to lift and the protection for the freedom of women, the state can choose only one, because abortion bounds to destroy fetal life, and the two can not be reconciled. Therefore, the constitutional law must weigh against the conflict and interest. Its standards rely on their constitutional values and cores of constitutional system--their relationship with human dignity. (Quinn, p.577) Obviously, the relationship between human life and human dignity is much more closer. The protection of fetal life must prior to the respect for the self-determination of pregnant women. This principle fit for the whole pregnancy process, not just in a particular period. Only ethics and human nature that are compatible with morality can shape human’s dignity.

In conclusion, the major religious attitude towards abortion are basically negative. And judging from the results of all abortions are wrong, and no abortion, contraception, birth control together. In any case, protecting and extending the life are moral. Life and death are not allowed to be violated, so I support the basic ideas of major religious denominating opinions to respect the right to life. The right to life is far greater than women's right to choose, and the right to life should be regarded as inviolable authority. However, this point of view in the specific implementation process will inevitably have to face challenges from various real-world problems.

Works Cited:

Clark, Tom C. "Religion, Morality, and Abortion: A Constitutional Appraisal." Loy.

ULAL Rev. 2 (1969): 1.

Callahan, Daniel. Abortion: Law, choice, and morality. Macmillan Pub Co, 1970.

Harrison, Beverly Wildung. Our right to choose: Toward a new ethic of abortion. Vol.

673. Beacon Pr, 1983.

pa Foot, Philip. "The problem of abortion and the doctrine of the double effect."

Applied ethics: Critical concepts in philosophy 2 (2002): 187.

Petchesky, Rosalind Pollack. Abortion and woman's choice: The state, sexuality, and

reproductive freedom. London: Verso, 1986.

Quay, Eugene. "Justifiable Abortion--Medical and Legal Foundations." Geo. LJ 49

(1960): 395.

Quinn, A. James, and James A. Griffin. "Rights of the Unborn, The." Jurist 31 (1971):

577.

Thomson, Judith Jarvis. "A defense of abortion." Philosophy & Public Affairs (1971):

47-66.