Abortion Should Be Allowed, Essay Example

Introduction

This refers to a deliberate act to expel or remove a fetus from a woman’s womb so that it results in the death of the fetus after the woman’s consent or at the request of an agency of the woman. Abortions are therefore voluntary and deliberate termination of pregnancy and expulsion of a fetus from a woman’s womb; a practice that has elicited a lot of debate on the ethical and legal issues of abortion.

Discussion

The argument that there is a great rift between the claim that a pregnant woman is entasked to do everything possible to keep a fetus alive until it is born, and that the fetus is also not guaranteed of staying alive especially in cases where a woman is unwillingly pregnant is quite plausible. It is the woman’s duty to keep a fetus alive only if she contracted a special obligation to do so. When we attempt to specify cases when abortion is justifiable, we encounter difficulties even on the assumption that the fetus is a human; Noonan, considered that the important question in the history of abortion is determining a being’s humanity (Noonan 134). Noonan based his argument on the theologians’ criterion of humanity that puts that whoever is conceived of humans is human. Pregnancy resulting from rape provides a significant justification for an abortion regardless of the argument of humanity since the woman is not responsible unlike in a normal pregnancy. The conclusion that a woman can request for an abortion in pregnancies resulting from unwanted pregnancies such as rape is unsatisfactory.

Compared to killing someone in self-defense, abortion is not a morally serious and unfortunate practice but a justifiable act. A fetus is not a person; it therefore does not have fully fledged living rights. Since innocent human beings have a right to life, the argument on deciding who is human is significant to provide reasons for justification of abortion or not. Fetuses are human in the moral sense with full-fledged moral rights; it is arguable whether whatever is genetically human is morally human.

Precarious lifestyle only begets another life that is even more hopeless than the existing ones. While those against the motion could insist against it, the question on quality of life to be given to the unborn is of paramount importance. If there is no hope of a better future, termination of pregnancy could be the best solution. In some cases, some women would opt to terminate their pregnancies due to job issues. Some jobs like being an airhostess do not allow one to become pregnant. If by any chance, one conceives, then she may be forced to terminate the pregnancy in order to keep the job. Prostitutes terminate any unwanted pregnancy without question. Though such jobs as prostitution could be brought about by poverty, being an airhostess is a career, and there are so many other such careers that a woman cannot do in case of pregnancy.

Warren outlines the major traits that defines a person and distinguishes a human from other pre- human entities based on; the ability to feel pain otherwise regarded as consciousness, ability to reason, self motivated activity independent of genetic and direct external control, communication capacity and the presence of self-concepts and self awareness. Though it proves tough and cumbersome to determine and apply these entire criterion in order to identify humans from non-humans; we can confidently claim that a fetus is not a person since it does not satisfy the conditions highlighted herein. Based on this background can we only summarily make the anti-abortionists and pro-abortionists agree on the definition of personhood; and conclusively agree on who has full-fledged moral rights. The notion that a fetus is a person only arises because human being is employed in the sense that implies personhood, or because of the confusion of the genetic and moral sense of humanism. A fetus is a human being which is not yet a person and which cannot therefore coherently be entitled to full moral rights. A seven or eight month embryo, though somewhat a person is not significantly more person like; apparently, it can feel and respond to pain and may have basic form of consciousness since its brain is active. Compared to an infant of a few months, it is safe to say that the embryo is not fully conscious; it cannot reason or communicate messages of indefinitely several sorts. If therefore, we are to base the right of life of a fetus on the resemblance to a person, then it will not have more rights to life than a newborn guppy. There should never be no legal restrictions upon the stage of pregnancy that abortion is permitted because of the fact that even a fully developed fetus is not more person-like enough.

If a fetus is allowed to develop, it will transform into a person. The potentiality of a fetus becoming a person does not provide justification for regarding it as a person with full moral rights. We do not insistently deny that a potential person has no right to life, unless we demand so in order to protect anyone’s rights ; potential persons though they have prima facie right to life, this right may not supersede the right of a woman to have an abortion. Marquis, in his anti-abortion defense asserts that, abortion is morally wrong because it involves the practice of killing a being that has a right to life and thereby robbing it of it’s valuable future. This argument is however absurd in the sense that he has not explained what sort of future a being must have for it to be a serios wrong having that being lose its future, he also argues that that if the killing of a standard adult human being is a serious moral wrong for the reasons he identifies, then the killing of a standard fetus is also morally seriously wrong too. The rights of an actual person should always outweigh that of a potential person in case of conflict between the two. Whatever existing right entitled to a fetus will therefore be overridden by the moral and constitutional right of a woman to protect her health, enjoy her freedom, have happiness and even her life by terminating a pregnancy (Roe & Wade).

Allowing an infant to die because of being born into an impoverished society that evidently cannot care for it adequately without infringing and endangering on the lives of those already in existence is justifiable as long as there is no society that is willing and has ability to provide its care. When the fetus threatens a woman’s life, and if the threat cannot be alleviated without the killing of one of them, the person’s rights will outweighs that of the infant regardless of the stage of the pregnancy as well as the desires of those who prefer that the fetus should not be harmed. When a late term abortion is actualized without killing the fetus, the woman has no right to determine its fate, in fact, in such a case; the mother has no right to request for its death.

Conclusion

It is the philosophers’ responsibility to criticize mistaken beliefs standing in the way of moral understanding especially if those beliefs are popular and widespread. The belief therefore that killing of genetic human entities is wrong is conclusively an error that will require lengthy and painful struggle.

Work Cited

Noonan, John, “Deciding Who Is Human,” Natural Law Forum, 13 (1968): 134.