Abortion: An Intractable Debate on Morality and Ethics - Research Paper

Introduction

The issue of the morality of abortion has been in the social circles for the longest time. While different people have expressed different opinions on the permissibility of abortion, it is essential to consider the underlying ethics any time this topic is discussed. Symmetries that come to the fore in the analysis of the major arguments by supporters and oppossers of abortion tend to create bigger rift as to why the debate seems intractable. In addressing issues related to abortion, it is essential to address the topic from an ethical perspective where biomedical ethical principles of autonomy and non-maleficence are addressed. In light of the biomedical ethical principle, this essay will argue that abortion is wrong as it tends to disrupt the life of an innocent human, it is unjust, and it strips the fetus their right to life.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

At the outset, it is essential to mention that abortion is wrong since human life begins at conception. When the sperm meets the egg in the fallopian tube, conception occurs. From that time, life begins and what is formed is no longer an egg and a sperm cell, but a human being. As such, any alteration to the life of this human being is considered killing (Marquis 187). One of the most egregious and popular hypocrisy is the argument from some quarters that life does not begin at conception but birth. However, there is a need to dissect the two and lay bare the difference between conception and birth. It is essential to ask oneself what is born. Whatever is born is a child or a human being to be precise. As such, it is correct to argue that the human being born had been existing even before the process took place. As such, birth needs to be seen not as the beginning of life, but as a necessary stage of ongoing human development. Therefore, those who argue that human life begins at birth fail to understand this simple logic.

Human beings become viable the moment they are formed in the womb. This process is the conception process. Human beings are in a constant state of development, which begins the moment the sperm cell meets the egg in the fallopian tube (Strong 730). This is followed by the implantation process, and after a period of development, the fetus is born, and birth takes place. Perhaps one of the issues that require to be clarified any time abortion is mentioned is what human life means. When people talk about human life they may mean a creature that has the human genetic code. However, this is not the only meaning. It is also possible that human life could mean might the ability to possess some human characteristics in addition to the human genetic code. These definitions are used differently when discussing the moral permissibility of abortion. Irrespective of the definition that one pick, one thing that stands clear is that for one to be called a human being, he or she must have the human genetic code which is developed during the conception process. In this regard, a child who has not been born is also a human being as he or she possesses the human genetic code.

Abortion is also morally wrong since every person has the right to life. The fetus is usually innocent and deficient of even the slightest blemish. As such, just like any other human being, the unborn child has the right to life. The right to life is a human right that applies in every other country. There is no one who has permission to take away the life of an innocent person (Berlatsky, 12). The right to life is protected by the law, and anyone who takes away the life of another should be prosecuted as per the laws. This means that people who do abortions are supposed to be taken to a court of law and prosecuted for taking away the life of another person. They need to be prosecuted in the same manner that murderers are prosecuted.

In the history of human rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is considered the greatest milestone to ever have been achieved. The reason for this is that it gives dignity and respect to human life. Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has the right to life, security, and liberty ("Universal Declaration"). The interpretation of this statement should follow the principle of charity and objectivity. This means that in interpreting the statement, one should seek to get the best possible interpretation of the statement without being biased or subjective in any way. In interpreting this statement, an objective interpreter would realize the right to life is granted, not to some few individuals but to "everyone." The declaration does not exclude the unborn from enjoying the right. Therefore, both the born and unborn children have equal rights to life, and their life needs to be protected. Therefore, performing an abortion is akin to taking away the right of another person, and this is both morally and legally impermissible.

Abortion strips the unborn child the right to life. As such, it is considered unjust and unwarranted. Life begins the moment fertilization occurs. This argument is supported by medical practitioners who have the ability to study the development process of the fetus. Medically, the unborn child is a "full" human being who is undergoing the development processes that any other person goes through (Berlatsky 77). Therefore, when one aborts, she denies the unborn child from enjoying their right to life. Every person has the right to life, and anyone who denies another from enjoying their right to life is considered to have committed a criminal offense. As such, those who support abortion need to realize that they support a crime just like anyone would support murder.

Supporters of abortion tend to cite autonomy as a factor for consideration in deciding whether to terminate the pregnancy or not. Autonomy is a bioethical principle that means "self-rule" (Baird & Stuart 23). In this regard, a woman has all the rights to determine whether to keep or terminate the pregnancy since it is hers. No other party should attempt to influence her decision. If pregnancy was to be regarded as morally neutral state, then there would be no justifiable reason to prevent the woman from terminating the pregnancy. However, the big question is whether pregnancy is a morally neutral state. Of course it is not.

Human reproduction cannot be equated to those of mammals. The fetus cannot be considered an invading organism. There are some complex compensating systems that take place. Attitudes that relate to pregnancy are tightly bound with the way that society views women, sex and their fertility (Baird & Stuart 23). Society has a divine perception of sex, fertility, and pregnancy. Pregnancy and birth are major life events that cannot be equated to bodily inconveniences such as cold and flu. Women are bound to suffer during pregnancy. However, the pain they endure is a preparation of life, and they cannot be allowed to abort their unborn children for that matter.

In bioethics, autonomy is regarded as a concept that allows a person to create laws based on his or her feelings and reasoning and not based on any instance that is external to him or her. In regards to abortion, the autonomy of the mother means that she can decide to carry or terminate the pregnancy at her own volition. However, in exercising autonomy, there is the need to link it to the principle of non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice. Beneficence means the desire to cause no harm and only promote the good of the other person (Marquis 200). This principle seeks to protect others from harm by avoiding to cause pain or suffering on them. The principle of non-maleficence stresses that a person avoids causing needless injury or harm to another one through acts of omission or commission. Therefore, the exercise of autonomy should be gauged against the principles of non-maleficence and beneficence. As such, a woman cannot purport to be exercising her autonomy by terminating the life of her unborn child since in doing this, the child will bear untold pain. This explains why abortion is morally wrong.

Abortion is not morally permissible as it strips a human of their right to life. In the discussion of abortion, those who support it are termed as pro-choice, while those who do not support it are referred to as pro-life. It is essential to note that the use of these terms is not academic but political. These terms were created in the political world with the intention of either supporting or refuting the agenda (Baird & Stuart 6). Despite the fact that these words are perceived as rhetorically effective, in terms of intellectual judgments, they are vacuous. In the rarefied air of philosophical and bioethical ethics, the opinion that abortion is moral is not only disturbing but also unsettling. Just like a young child develops over the years to become an adult, so does a fetus develop while in the womb until it is born. The fetus, just like any other person has the right to life, and cutting it is wrong.

Some pro-choice crusaders argue that abortion should be excused if the pregnancy results from acts such as rape. This argument rests on the premise that it was not the decision of the mother to get pregnancy, and any time she sees the pregnancy, it becomes a reminder of the painful ordeal, and this causes her immense psychological suffering. Important to note, however, is that the pain of the mother should not be relieved by causing pain to an innocent child. One may wonder what needs to be done in such a case. The solutions are many.

Instead of aborting the child, there are safer solutions that the mother has at her disposal. One of these is giving the child for adoption. The mother can carry the pregnancy till birth and then give the child for adoption to responsible adopters. This will have saved the mother the agony and the child the pain of getting killed. Carrying out abortion for the mere reason that one was raped is punishing the wrong target. While rape cannot be supported under whatever means, the punishment must be directed at the offender and not an innocent child. Additionally, whether pregnancy happens willingly or out of rape, that does not change the value and meaning of life.

By and large, the topic on abortion attracts divergent views on those who support it and those who support it. However, from the above discussion, it is evident that abortion is not morally permissible as it seeks to end the life of a young child, thus denying the child the right to life. Those who support abortion on the tenet that the mother has the autonomy to decide whatever she wants with her pregnancy fail to acknowledge that just like the mother claims to enjoy autonomy, the unborn child too has the right to autonomy. This means that the child should be exposed to pain and suffering in the name of protecting the autonomy of the mother. There is the need to consider other bioethical principles such as non-maleficence and beneficence which stress that the child unborn child should not be subjected to any form of harm. Based on the above discussion, it is clear that no case can abortion be considered morally permissible.

Works Cited

Baird, M., and Stuart E. The Ethics of Abortion: Pro-life Vs. Pro-Choice. Amherst, N.Y: Prometheus Books, 2001. Print.

Berlatsky, N. Abortion. Detroit, Mich: Greenhaven Press, 2011. Print.

Marquis, D. "Why Abortion Is Immoral." The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 86, no. 4, 1989, pp. 183-202. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2026961.

Strong, C. "A Critique of 'The Best Secular Argument against Abortion.'" Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 34, no. 10, 2008, pp. 727-731. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/27720190.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nation, (n.d.). Retrieved from: https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/