Medical Ethics Abortion Essay

Most moral issues in medicine and healthc atomic number 18 will aid lively debate, provided no idea seems to inflame tempers much than the question of stillbirth. The disjuncture between pro- demeanor and pro- cream stinkpot be an uncompromising stance of deep held beliefs and principles. On the angiotensin-converting enzyme hand, there is the call option that the fetus is a forgiving organism with the same duty to living as some(prenominal) other human being, and spontaneous terminateion is therefore nada less(prenominal)(prenominal) than murder. On the other hand, it is argued that a muliebrityhood has a obligation to bring what happens inwardly her testify body, and is therefore furtherified in close making to produce her fetus accede onward if she so wishes.Even a liberal positioning is problematic these tend to deal out the pick up that it is permissible for an stillbirth to take rump in advance a certain storey in the foet hires develo ping, tho non beyond that bearn point. Such an ar sharpnessrary opinion does seem difficult to quantify how coffin nail whateverone determine the criteria that would navigate a decision that arrives termination acceptable today still morally reprehensible tomorrow? It is sometimes argued that the fetus reaches personhood well before birth.By the tenth week, for example, it already has a face, fortification and legs, fingers and toes it has internal organs, and brain diddleivity is detectable.1 entirely does this undermine a charrs right to self determination trick it still be sane for her to choose abortion, authorizen its level of development? We shall research this question non from the perspective of whether the foetus is human, scarce from the premise that the char charhoods rights all over her body atomic number 18 more important than the spiritednessspan of the person or persona person in her womb.2A Womans ripe(p) to self-defenseJudith Jarvis Thoms on presents the following hypothesis3 a cleaning womanhood becomes pregnant and accordingly learns that she has a cardiac condition that will ca custom her conclusion if the maternity go forwards. Let us c erstssion the foetus personhood, with a right to animation. manifestly the mystify too has a right to career, so how rouse we decide whos right to life is greater? A way of answering this question could be to say that an abortion is an act of assault with the sole intention to pour d feature. Whereas to do nonhing would non be an attempt by anyone to murder the fetch, rather to just allow her die.The passivity of the latter could be seen as morally preferable than directly violent oddment an needy person. Thomson argues that It sewernot seriously be verbalize thatshe must sit passively by and wait for her closing.4 in that location are 2 people involved, two are innocent, tho one is endangering the life of the other. Thomson retrieves that in this scen ario a woman is entitle to defend herself against the menace posed by the unborn tyke, all the same if ultimately this will cause its decease.I feel Thomson is correct in her appraisal. If an unprejudiced judgement was sought by an lesson-by-case as to whose life has greater worth the foetus or the woman, they might not feel able to chooseboth lives could be seen to withdraw equal value. just now there is aught objective around the womans topographic pointher life is endangered. If a person threatens my life pull d experience if they are not conscious of their actionsI have a right to putting to death them, if that is the entirely course of action I chamberpot take to repel the attack.The scenario becomes less clear when we get h rare of if a woman hold ups the same right to defend herself if the prolongation of her pregnancy causes her serious health problems that are not terminal. Again, I would assess the situation in terms of an attack. Do I have a right to kill an assailant if he attempts to wound me? The answer, I deliberate, is symbiotic upon degreethe injury that would be inflicted. It seems reasonable that the degree of retaliation should be proportional to the severity of the attack.Similarly, a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy if its police force of continuation instigates a degree of illness that is arch enough to warrant that decision. The problem consequently is quantifying much(prenominal) comparatives. It might seem reasonable to nominate the woman involved as the person best qualified to hold that decision, but shouldnt such judgments arise from an objective source? After all, should I be able to take the law into my own hands and choose any(prenominal) reprisal I thought necessary against my aggressor?A Womans salutary to OwnershipA woman holds possession of her own body therefore she whitethorn abort her foetus if that is what she chooses it is in a very real sense her ownto dispose of as she wishes .5 prof Thomson analogises it is not that the woman and foetus are same(p) two tenants occupying a small signaling that has been mis takenly rented to both of themthe fuss owns the house.6 scarcely not all claims of ownership hold an automatic right to dispose of their keeping. tail Harris gives an example7 suppose I own a life-saving drug, and have nothing planned for its use other than placing it on my shelf. If I decent a person who was dependent on that drug otherwise they will die, I would not be morally entitled to withhold the drugit would be defame of me to figure out that right.What Harris is expressing is that a woman may have the right to do what she wishes to her own body, but it would be wrong of her to exercise that right. The question past is does the value of ownership of your body take precedence over the value of the foetus? Property is sometimes commandeered during war, and this action is usually justified because case security is thought to take antec edency over an individuals right to ownership.8 Another compelling, and I think decisive, affirmation comes from Mary Anne Warren. She states that ownership does not give me a right to kill an innocent person on my property, furthermore, it is also culpable to banish a person from my property if by doing so they will undoubtedly perish.9If one does not accept that a foetus is a human being, hence the woman may have it packd from her body, similarly to having a kidney stone taken out. still if the foetus is believed to be a person, therefore I do not think any personal line of credit of ownership ass hold up against the soundness of the given examples.A Foetuses Right to its Mothers embodyCan a womans right to choose abortion take priority over the foetuses right to life? professor Thomson argues that a right to life does not guaranteehaving either a right to be given the use of or a right to be allowed lived use of another persons bodyeven if one need it for life.10 T homson goes on to give an example11, that if she was terminally ill, and the lone(prenominal) thing that would save her life was the touch of Henry Fondas calm down hand on her fevered brow, she would have no right to expect him to choke to her side and assist her in this way. No doubt, Thomson adds that it would be frightfully nice of him, but she holds no right against him that he should do so.An obvious criticism is to argue that a woman has a superfluous righteousness to her foetus, simply because she is its scrama right that Henry Fonda does not owe, so the analogy, is rendered useless. that Thomson postulates that we do not have any such special responsibility for a person unless we have assumed it, explicitly or implicitly.12 Thomson therefore argues that if a pregnancy is unwanted, and the woman holds no emotional wedge to the foetus, there is no attachment and so no responsibility. A likely contend to Thomsons idea is to suggest that the special responsibility is bonded through genes rather then emotion. If a babe is born and the mother abandons it, her culpability is held through their mother and bollix up relationship rather then what the mother thinks of her baby.Another argument that can give claim by the foetus to its mothers body is one of contract.13 It could be said that by voluntarily zesty in sexual intercourse a womaneven if using contraceptive methodrisks the chance of pregnancy. By considering the possible consequences of her actions, she must be seen as trustworthy for the organism of the foetus, because no method of contraceptive method is known to be infallible. Since the woman is accountable for bringing the foetus into the world (albeit in her womb) she assumes an obligation to continue to provide fodder for its survival.Michael Tooley offers an example that he believes analogises this argument14 there is a pleasurable act that I practice. solely by engaging in it, it can have the unfortunate risk of destroying so ulfulnesss food supply. This will not cause the person any problem, as long as I continue to make such provisions, even though it causes me immense trouble and expense. Tooley says that he arranges things so that the probability of the pleasurable act having such an effect is as small as possible (contraception). nevertheless he says that if things do go wrong, he is still responsible for the person needing food, and therefore obligated to readiness the food needed. Tooley believes that once we engage in an activity that can emfly bring into being a boor, then we assume responsibility for its needs, even if bringing that child into existence was accidental and precautions were taken to prevent that outcome.prof Thomson offers her own powerful analogy in contrast to the above viewIf the agency is stuffy, and I therefore open a window to air it, and a brigand climbs in, it would be wet to say, Ah, now he can stay, shes given him a right to the use of her housefor she is part responsible for his presence there, having voluntarily do what enabled him to get in, in full experience that there are such things as burglars, and that burglars burgle. It would be still more absurd to say this if I had had bars installed outback(a) my windows, precisely to prevent burglars from getting in, and a burglar got in only because of a defect in the bars.15 stillbirth, Due to cockerAs already stated, most views against abortion base their position from the value they come on on the foetuses life. Even so, in the case where pregnancy had occurred through rape, most opponents of abortion would believe that there would be decent exculpation for termination. Obviously, there is something paradoxical or so thisif the foetus is valuable because it is human, it is obviously no less human because its mother had been raped.So how can some opponents of abortion hold such contradictory ideas? Janet Radcliffe Richards explains that when a woman is forced to continue pregnan cy until childbirth, the child is being utilize as an instrumentate of punishment to the mother, and that talk of the sanctity of life is being used to disguise the fact.16 The only thing that a woman that wants to abort for reasons of accidental pregnancy has make contrastingly, is to of busy willingly to sexand that is what she is being punish for.17Richards offers an interesting approach to the apparent revulsion stated, although I dont find its supposition altogether convincing. I think the double-standards described, portray an individual that holds only a relative opinion to the value of life that is held by the foetus. That is, the foetus is human, with rights, but not as human and not as much rights as an adult human being. And this is how I feel critics of abortion consider priority to women in rape cases.A Fathers RightTo what degree, if any, does the amazes opinion count on whether his unborn child should die at the hands of the mother? After all, the foetus is ve ry much a part of himsharing his genetic make-up. It is noted by John Harris18 that a man is not entitled to wear a woman for the consumption of impregnating herthat is rapeso then it follows that he must not violate her by forcing his wishes for a pregnancy to continue until birth. The counter argument is that by agreeing to sex, a woman has tacitly agreed to lease the mans child.Ultimately the womans opinion must take priority over the mansbecause she has to carry the foetus, but, once a foetus is formed, one can have a degree of sympathy for the mans situation. If copulation had taken place for the purpose of impregnation, then why should the man drive a feeling of loss just because his partner changes her mind? Where contraception is used, his argument may be weakenedthey did not intend parenthood. But if both were planning for a baby, is it fare that once that child exists, the mother can take it away from its father, even though he has done no wrong?A Right to demolitionI f a pregnancy is complete during its early stages, the foetus will undoubtedly die. But if an abortion takes place later in pregnancy, and by some miracle survives, the mother has no right to secure the death of the unborn child.19 If the baby was still unwanted, the woman may be utterly devastated by the thought of a child, a bit of herself, put out for adoption and neer seen or heard of again20 but she can only demand her dissolution from it she may not order its execution.I guess there would be some opponents to this assertion but it is interesting to understand why. If a person accepts the permissibility of abortion, how is it so different to kill a child that survives its try termination? Presumably the foetus has acquired rights that it didnt hold inside the womb, or possibly the woman loses her rights during that transition. It seems strange that location should fudge the foetuses perspective so drastically after(prenominal) all, it is the same being. It could be argued that it is independence that qualifies the foetus for its right to live. When it no longer needs its mother for survival, and is not reliant upon her in any way, she loses the right to decide its fate.Professor Thomsons explanation is somewhat different she too agrees that there is no defense for a woman to order the death of a foetus that lives following an abortion, but her reasoning is not dependent upon any acquisition or loss of rights. Thomson argues that a termination is just the right for a woman to detach the foetus from her body. This is not an act of murder (even though its death is inevitable during its infancy) but an entitlement to liberation, whatever its outcome.21Professor Thomson presents an account that would be reasonable if the act of abortion was purely an attempt of separation. But in fact the procedure used is an attempt, not only to detach and remove the foetus, but to kill it.22 If the abortionist fails in this task, then Thomson allows the baby a right t o live. But as the method of termination is designed for the foetus to die, I believe it renders Thomsons point unsound.ConclusionProfessor Thomson concedes that It would be indecent in the woman to involve an abortion, and indecent in a get to perform it, if she is in her seventh month, and wants the abortion just to avoid the nuisance of postponing a trip abroad.23 So, even staunch defendants of libber ethics feel compelled to consider the foetuses interests once its development reaches a mature stage. It could be argued that the foetus has become a baby, and abortion is therefore tantamount to infanticide.I believe that anyone can exercise their right to self-defense if their life is threatened, and a woman can use her prerogative against the unborn baby at any stage of its development without recrimination. However, I feel that a womans right to expel her foetus for any other reason has only relative justification. Relative because a womans rights to abort become less valid as the foetus develops.There is, in my opinion, a necessary correlativity between foetal development and a womans right to termination. A woman may exercise her choice without compromise during early pregnancy, because the foetus is nothing more then potential, but justification becomes less palatable as potential becomes actualised. Can a woman in truth hold the same rights to choose what happens within her own body when the foetus is 20 five weeks old, as she did when it was ten weeks old?As previously mentioned, arbitrarily choosing a point in the foetuses life and shout before this point the thing is not a person, after this point it is a person, does appear contrived. But its comparison with before this point a woman can choose, after this point she cant does seem vindicated against less able views. The purpose of this essay was to assess a case for abortion that was not dependent on the foetuses right to life, but quite to appreciate a womans right to choose. I dont beli eve that either position can be considered without respecting the rights of the other. Therefore, in my opinion a woman holds considerable rights but they are only relative to the foetuses level of development.BIBLIOGRAPHYDwyer, Susan, The difficulty of Abortion. capital of the United Kingdom WadsworthPublishing Company, 1997Glover, Jonathan, Causing Death and Saving Lives. London Penguin Books, 1997Harris, John, The Value of Life. London Routledge, 1985Info on Abortion Abortion, Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopaedia, http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AbortionOther_means_of_ abortionRichards, Janet, The unbelieving Feminist. Harmondsworth Pelican, 1982Sherwin, Susan, No Longer Patient. Philadelphia Temple University Press, 1992Thomson, Judith, A Defence of Abortion, Philosophy and globe Affairs, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1971 pp. 47-66Tooley, Michael, Abortion and Infanticide. London Oxford University Press, 1983Warren, link up Anne, On the Moral and Legal lieu of Abortion, The Monist, 1973