Paper Example on Abortion: A Conundrum of Contention

SOCRATES: Abortion is a dilemma that plunges into the fabric of the societal setting, ripping it off its sanity, don't you think?

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

Save 25%

PRO-CHOICE ACTIVIST: Well, it has been a subject of discussion for many years since time immemorial.

SOCRATES: Without a doubt, it is a contentious issue.

PRO-CHOICE ACTIVIST: I, however, think that since it is a private matter, it should not be given the limelight that has always been cast upon it.

SOCRATES: I beg to differ; abortion is not only private but also a public affair. It is through public entities such as judicial bodies that rules have been formulated thereby leading to laws and regulations regulating and trying to bring a balance between the medical experiences on reproduction and the morality surrounding the status of life of a foetus.

PRO-CHOICE ACTIVIST: Is this really worth the discussion? Women should just be left to make their own choices.

SOCRATES: Oh! Yes. I think it is about time we have this discussion rationally if you will be bent on being a pro-choice activist and not a pro-life after this, then we will leave it at that. Shall we proceed?

PRO-CHOICE ACTIVIST: Well, let us see how best you can convince me, we can proceed.

SOCRATES: We can also not turn a blind eye to the historical antecedents that clogged the issue of abortion. The act was always being criminalized in England since 1200; in fact, prosecutions of this nature date back to 800 years. Well, there can only be one motivating factor for such laws; for the protection of the foetus. (Dellapena, 2006)

PRO-CHOICE ACTIVIST: That may have been the case but times have changed, and so is the way of thinking of people around the globe.

SOCRATES: Correct, I do not dispute that. But don't you think our laws should look into the past so as to get a glimpse of how acts were conducted and regulated? Don't you think a nation's history informs its future?

PRO-CHOICE ACTIVIST: I partly agree with you; it is true that our laws are informed by past events. However, there should be modifications to such laws and regulations.

SOCRATES: Modifications? At the expense of a developing life? Without due regard to morality?

PRO-CHOICE ACTIVIST: Morality is relative; it cannot be pegged on a single perspective.

SOCRATES: That is true; however, there must be a line between what is evil and what is right before the laws of nature. It is a matter of one's conscience, and a rational human being is able to decipher between the two. As a test to morality, we can have a look at the In Vitro Fertilization process, (Harris, 1950) advancement in reproductive health. This is a process whereby eggs are extracted from a woman and are carefully placed in a laboratory shelf so as to fertilize. They are then re-introduced into the wombs of women who extracted them so they can give birth normally. The problem now comes with what they do with the embryos that are not re-implanted. They are usually used for experiments or stored and dried for future use or eventually thrown away to die off. Tell me, does this sit well with a moral and rational human being? This is no different from the aborted cases we hear every other day, it is even safe to classify it as a secondary form of abortion as the process of discarding the embryos from artificial wombs is no different from the way foetuses are discarded.

PRO-CHOICE ACTIVIST: That is an ugly act.

SOCRATES: It is!

PRO-CHOICE ACTIVIST: I, however, still think women should not be strictly dictated with regards to their reproductive matters.

SOCRATES: Okay, looking at the personhood of a foetus, do you think a foetus is a person from the moment of conception?

PRO-CHOICE ACTIVIST: A foetus cannot be classified as a person; it beats logic to classify it as one.

SOCRATES: I disagree, a foetus is a person. Conception marks the beginning of life we cannot see, but with the help of medical equipment that has been made possible, it is at this stage that the entire genetic composition is completed and nothing can be added or subtracted. Even if we go with your stand, don't you think that it has the potential to be a person? Is that not reason enough for it to be accorded the respect a person is given? (Herring, 2010) It is a living organism; it is definitely 'one of us'.

PRO-CHOICE ACTIVIST: Biologically speaking, this is entirely correct.

SOCRATES: I am glad you conquer. Morally speaking, the foetus has moral claims as well. This is heavily pegged on its potential to become a person. The killing of such innocent beings would then be discouraged as doing that is depriving them of a life they might have had and enjoyed in the future.

PRO-CHOICE ACTIVIST: A foetus may, however, die nonetheless through other means.

SOCRATES: That is correct. As long as its death is not procured by the expectant woman because then, that would amount to killing or even murder, don't you think?

PRO-CHOICE ACTIVIST: Well, it will be killing, I, however, don't think if it can be classified as murder as that is a more harsh crime as compared to abortion with heavier penalties. Murder only applies to human beings and not some living organism that is banking on the potentiality to live or not.

SOCRATES: Well, nonetheless I think the killing of a living organism is not far -fetched from murder the only difference is that the victim still resides within you otherwise a woman who is capable of committing an abortion is also capable of killing or should I say committing the murder of a newborn baby.

PRO-CHOICE ACTIVIST: There is still a thin line.

SOCRATES: A very thin one, I must say! If one thinks of the innocence of a foetus, looking at a rape example, I am well aware of the emotional trauma the victim goes through, and she may even opt to regard the unborn child a burden that she does not wish to carry forward with her. But have you stopped to think that even in the midst of all these, the foetus is innocent and it has no connection with the perpetrator of the crime?

PRO-CHOICE ACTIVIST: The trauma such women go through is out of this world; it is so immense that it cuts through their heart and their whole being. The only option they are always left with is simply to abort the foetus so as to live their lives with no constant reminder of the emotional and physical pain that they underwent.

SOCRATES: I am well aware of the emotional trauma; it is, however, universally accepted that the foetus is morally innocent as it is blind to the suffering of its mother. It, therefore, begs the question, will the expectant woman act in good faith and safeguard the innocent life or choose to terminate it altogether, and the latter is a fatal and insensitive move.

PRO-CHOICE ACTIVIST: An abortion option should still be open.

SOCRATES: Fair enough. Sadly, the option has always been there. This is especially when women are mounting their arguments on a woman's autonomy; this only brings a heated conflicted between the right to life of a foetus and the reproductive health rights of women. They tend to toss their argument on the table and argue on the basis of their self -determination, which should be given all the attention.

PRO-CHOICE ACTIVIST: This is how it should always be; women have a right to self-determination and are rational enough to know what they want for themselves without the unnecessary pressure from society.

SOCRATES: That is where the problem lies, the pretence of self-determination often overrides the right of an unborn child, and as such, the foetus is always at the receiving end with no consideration given to them.

PRO-CHOICE ACTIVIST: But that is how it should be, it is their bodies, what happened to a person's autonomy, Socrates!

SOCRATES: This is exactly my point, it is very dangerous to leave this matter entirely in the private discord, the more reason it should be tossed in the public arena so that the unborn child, who has a right to life just like any other individual, can be fully protected from otherwise 'rogue' mothers.

PRO-CHOICE ACTIVIST: I do not think if all that is necessary. Women should be given the right to choose (Jackson 2010) prenatal life should not be regarded when it comes to choosing between the expectant mother and the foetus. There are no interests or rights that accrue to fetuses. In this regard, the bodily integrity of a woman is what should be given as an important element. It should be heavily guarded unless we want to witness constant victimization on our women. Autonomy demands that one is a servant of own being, they should be left to make assessments of their own desires and have the free will to actualize them while looking out at the options that are available to them.

SOCRATES: Autonomy and bodily integrity cannot be ignored; however, the same flimsy excuses cannot be used as a means to procure an abortion.

PRO-CHOICE ACTIVIST: The right to life of every person cannot leave out women in this debate; women also have a right to choose what they want to happen in and to her body. If a pregnancy proves to be a threat to the life of an expectant mother, then she has all the rights to abort it in an attempt to safeguard her own life. This choice is, however, left to the individual person to decide.

SOCRATES: That is factually correct as sometimes pregnancies can cause health risks to the lives of an expectant mother, such an option and recourse is a partly noble one.

PRO-CHOICE ACTIVIST: Right. The obligation should not be backed up by sanctions such that should not be legal obligation where one is forced to carry a pregnancy to term, and it should rather be looked at in terms of sacrifice from the woman who may choose to remain pregnant or abort it if she so wishes.SOCRATES: For a nation to curb 'careless' abortion practices, it needs laws and procedures, as such, I think the introduction of legal obligations as is present in most nations' laws is a sure and concrete way to identify genuine reasons for abortions and the unscrupulous ones. This I turn also continues to strengthen the morals of a nation as they are the brainchild of today's laws.

PRO-CHOICE ACTIVIST: This is a rather strict measure.

SOCRATES: A strict but necessary measure. This is the reasoning; pregnancies are not coerced relationships with the exception of rape cases. It, therefore, goes without saying that an expectant woman should possess an obligation to the foetus, her unborn child. This is better understood from the point of intercourse where two consenting adults agree to the act, the result of which may be the conception of a foetus who is in a needy position.

PRO-CHOICE ACTIVIST: This is partly true, and I feel the laws are too harsh; they should have had the emotional soundness of such women in mind when coming up with such laws. It is, however, relatively necessary.

SOCRATES: The laws are of necessity without a doubt.

PRO-CHOICE ACTIVIST: Another important factor to consider would be the brain criterion, zygote does not have the brain activity like that of other persons and such it should not be accorded the same right and respect accorded to other persons. It is, therefore, morally accepted to destroy such an organism. There is a biological process that the zygote undergoes before it can finally be categorized to be having a brain activity equated to that of other persons.

SOCRATES: With all due respect, this argument is rather loosely placed as it is evident that the formative stages of a zygote begin at conception as it undergoes through the different stages. The brain during these stages continues to form gradually. It is, however, important to note that is not only the brain that grown but also other body parts start to conform; the parts are generated in a gradual manner. It is thus misleading for you to say that such a being cannot be accorded the right and respect it deserves due t...