Should Induced Abortion Be Prohibited To Protect Fetus' Human Rights - Assignment Example

? Should induced abortion be prohibited to protect fetus' human rights? In the of this essay the infamous debate on abortion will be put forward; whether it should be allowed or prohibited, and if allowed under what circumstances and conditions? Abortion has been the subject of debate for centuries and many people have spent much time defending both sides of the case. This essay will attempt to sum up this historic subject as fully as possible. The term abortion means the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus1. Abortion can be done in the following ways: Vacuum Aspiration, Dilation and Curettage (D & C), Dilation and Evacuation (D & E), Prostaglandins (induced premature labour) and RU486 pills taken in the first ten weeks of pregnancy. Induced abortion is an abortion that is voluntary and is also known as artificial abortion2. On the other hand spontaneous abortion, also called miscarriage, is a natural loss of the products of conception. This type of abortion is accidental and unintentional, and thus not the issue of debate. Induced abortion, on the other hand, is done with the consent of the woman and has become the subject of much debate3. The fetus is expelled or terminated before childbirth. Wherever the word abortion is used in this essay, it is understood that it will mean induced abortion and not a miscarriage. The issue of abortion remains a most controversial matter to date and much time has been spent on debating over the legality of abortion. Different governments have different laws over abortions and there is a conflicted world opinion. When discussing abortions the major line of arguments that are put forward are the social and religious acceptance of abortion, foetal rights and the effects of unwanted childbirth and/or abortion on the woman. In the course of this essay all these issues will be discussed and a conclusion shall be drawn. In a global context we find that in 17 out of 18 nations polled around the world, majorities reject using criminal penalties, such as fines and imprisonment, as a means to prevent abortion4. On average across all 18 countries, 52 per cent favour leaving the matter of abortion to the individual, while 42 per cent think their government should try to discourage abortions. This shows exactly how heated the debate on induced abortion must be! When discussing induced abortion the most significant question that comes to mind is can we choose to kill unwanted pregnancies? Does the charter of human rights apply to humans after birth or as early as an embryo? Critics of abortion argue that since life begins at conception, abortion is next to murder as a human life is taken. They believe that abortion is in denial of the sanctity of human life. On the other hand supporters of induced abortion justify that almost all abortions occur in the first trimester when the fetus is entirely dependent on the mother and thus cannot be claimed as a separate human being. Also as the foetus is part of the woman’s body it should be entirely her decision whether to go through childbirth or opt for abortion. People are divided in to two groups; Pro-Life, inclusive of those people who advocate the protection of human embryos and foetuses and vote for the outlawing of abortion on the basis that is murder, and Pro-Choice, i.e. people who support the basic right of women to choose whether or not to continue pregnancy till childbirth. The single treaty that actually grants specific rights to foetuses is the American Convention on Human Rights of 1969, signed by 24 Latin American countries, which says that human rights begin at the moment of conception5. The United States of America has not signed this treaty. However this treaty does not enforce signatories to ban abortion, according to the most recent interpretation. Now let’s discuss abortion from a religious point of view. Religion indeed has the inclination to get involved in the majority of debates. Clerics are conflicted in their varied views towards abortion however most do not support abortion. Induced abortion is banned in almost all Muslim countries because abortion is against their firm religious beliefs.The Ulema (Muslim Scholars) are in agreement that induced abortion is strictly prohibited and shall be treated with punishment. They preach that only when there is a threat to the mother’s life can abortion be performed. So in Muslim countries this debate is pretty much void and they have strict laws against abortion in place. In Roman Catholic Church scholars and leaders usually condemn abortion. Devoted Catholic families accept the Catholic teaching that abortions are immoral and unethical. Protestant churches beliefs on abortions at times have been mixed and controversial but have never been explicitly in favour. But because most governments in states where Christians are in majority do not enact laws on the basis of religion but rather on the basis of democracy, abortions are not condemned by law. Very few Christians today rigidly follow the commandments of Bible while most rely on their personal judgement and consensus to decide matters. Buddhists believe that abortions should be condemned however once again with restrictions. Throughout history religions have argued on the fact that abortions take away God’s right to life. So from a religious perspective induced abortion is discouraged. However we must consider why women go through induced abortion? The most common reason is that they do not want the child because it’s illegitimate meaning they have done adultery or fornication and they are not ready to go through childbirth and then parenting. Majority of women who choose abortions are young women who are unmarried and not in a position to raise children. It is true that religions prohibit induced abortions but is it not also true that religions prohibit fornication and extramarital sex? Thus when religious arguments are put forward both sides of the matter must be remembered. If religions prohibit induced abortion it’s because they also prohibit the causes of induced abortions. ‘People against abortions say that adoption is an effective alternative to abortion’6. Adoption as an alternative of abortion has been the basis of immense debate in recent times. Supporters of adoption put forward the fact that there are thousands of families in developed countries who are looking to adopt children and in such countries there is no concept of an unwanted child. However in developing countries and third world nations where rapid population growth is taking place and resources are insufficient, adoptions are rare. Zastrow7 observes, ‘If the world’s population continues to grow at or near its present rate, the current debate over voluntary abortions may pale compared to controversies that will be generated if compulsory population control measures are needed’. Adoption can be relied upon when unwanted pregnancy takes place, and the child can be transferred to a suitable family. However this results in complications as well. For the real mother there are always psychological effects of adoptions and a feeling of guilt remains for the rest of her life. Abortion takes its toll on women too but they eventually forget the past and move on and secondly abortion is done with the consent of women so it is their own choice. Unwanted pregnancies and then childbirth are outside the control of women and then having to give up the child for adoption is very stressful for many. Generally adoptions are more acceptable in societies than abortions and supporters of pro-life argue that women who give birth to unwanted child can give children to families who really want children but cannot have them due to infertility or other reasons. Open adoptions take care of psychological effects of adoption because women know that their child is being taken good care of and they are updated of their child’s progress as a part of another family. Instead if the women had opted for abortion she would have to spend the rest of her life with long-lasting guilt. Psychiatrists state that women often feel extremely guilty after an abortion and psychological trauma can stick to the woman even for years after an abortion. Supporters of pro-choice have entirely different views, as expected. They firmly believe that adoption can never be an alternative to abortion because after childbirth it remains up to the mother whether to become a parent or give up the child for adoption. And at childbirth there are chemicals released within the mother’s body which make it very hard for them to be separated from the child that’s why many adoptions are cancelled at the eleventh hour and women end up parenting the child. They comment that women are not incubators for other families and it is not their duty in any way whatsoever to give birth to children. A woman has the sole right to her body and to the fetus growing inside her. Abortions, if performed early, leave the women with slight psychological effects and something they forget easily. Victims of rape or incest are put in an awful position when impregnated. They should not be enforced to go through childbirth because then the child is a daily reminder of the trauma that they have suffered. For such women abortion is a much better road towards forgetting their past tragedies and leading healthy normal lives. Furthering this point, Kaczor8 argues, ‘in situations of crisis pregnancy, what could merely be a theoretical debate, pro-life vs. pro-choice, becomes for women and sometimes also the men who made them pregnant a moment of decision, a turning point where life-altering decisions are made’. Why has there been so much debate on abortion? One important reason is the fact that it is closely associated with human rights. Two significant points to be discussed are the rights of the pregnant women and the rights of the fetus growing inside her. In USA, during the 1960s and 1970s states began to question the bans on abortions. Roe v. Wade was a historical decision made by the United States Supreme Court on the controversial issue of abortion.This was the first time the court decided that the constitutional right to privacy "is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy”9. So abortions became legalised throughout the United States. Roe v. Wade holds that the government has a firm interest in protecting human life, but that this does not become a compelling state interest overriding the woman's Fourteenth Amendment right to privacy, and her subsequent right to terminate her pregnancy until the point of viability. The point of viability or the personhood of fetus is generally understood to start between 22 to 24 weeks of pregnancy for various reasons. At this stage in pregnancy the neocortex develops, and if the fetus is removed from the womb put in medical care it has a relatively high chance of long-term survival. So the Roe v. Wade implies that government is interested in protecting the rights of the fetus but before the point of viability the fetus itself does not have rights. Women’s reproductive rights and their right to privacy are not the same in different parts of the world. It is a woman’s inherent right to have control over their bodies but when a fetus passes the point of viability their right to oneself interferes with the rights of the fetus. Women’s rights advocators believe that because the fetus grows within the mother’s womb, is nourished by her, is born from her and the responsibility of the child falls upon the mother (in the case of adoption the responsibility is transferred) so it should be the right of the women to choose for abortion or childbirth. On the other hand the foetal rights can certainly not be ignored. Pregnant women have fewer civil rights than other members of the society because there is no point in anybody else’s life when you can’t make a healthcare decision or you can’t choose a medical procedure that will have the best possible outcome on your health. And this is solely due to the rights of the fetus being involved. Marzilli10 poses the question, ‘When do you think life begins? Do you think someone becomes a person sometime after life begins?’ Every human person has the right to life and pro-life supporters argue that foetuses have the potential to develop (in most cases) into fully functional human beings and abortion is the termination of that human being11. Others oppose this suggestion and draw a line between foetuses and human persons. They state that foetuses maybe human beings but not human persons and do not have the right to life. To discuss further, several criteria of personhood have been drawn, some of them being the ability to feel pain, the ability to communicate, the ability to reason and self-awareness12. According to Mary Ann Warren (American Writer), a foetus exhibits only one criterion: consciousness13; and that too after becoming susceptible to pain. Therefore the foetus is not a person and thus abortion is not immoral and should be allowed. Pro-life supporters once again rebut that the proposed criteria for personhood would exclude two classes of born human persons: reversibly comatose patients and infants. Concluding a debate on abortion is often impossible because of the strong reasoning from both sides. The question remains whether it should be prohibited to protect fetus’ human rights or to be allowed to protect the rights of pregnant women? It can be concluded that women should be allowed to abort a pregnancy till the point of viability because it is ultimately they themselves who face the consequences of either decision. And even when abortion is made illegal, wealthy women have the resources to get private doctors to perform abortions while poor women have to choose between an unwanted child or an unsafe, illegal abortion which is extremely unfair on their side. Women should be encouraged to dutifully use contraception and if not, abstain from sex. If an unwanted pregnancy does occur, abortion should be done before the point of viability so that foetal rights are not infringed. References Cox, FD 2008, Human Intimacy: Marriage, the Family, and Its Meaning, Research Update, 10th edn, Cengage Learning. Hoggatt, MJ 2008, Moving to the Manger: A Journey from Exclusion to Inclusion, AuthorHouse. Slack, JD 2009, Abortion, execution, and the consequences of taking life, Transaction Publishers. Joseph, R 2009, Human rights and the unborn child, BRILL. Kaczor, C 2010, The Ethics of Abortion: Women's Rights, Human Life, and the Question of Justice, Taylor & Francis Publishers. Lee, P 2010, Abortion & Unborn Human Life, 2nd edn, CUA Press. Loveless, AS & Holman, T 2007, The Family in the New Millennium: Strengthening the family, Greenwood Publishing Group. Marzilli, A 2006, Fetal Rights, Infobase Publishing, Pollock, EE 2008, The Supreme Court and American democracy: case studies on judicial review and public policy, ABC-CLIO. Rosdahl, CB & Kowalski, MT 2007, Textbook of basic nursing, 9th edn, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Runzheimer, J & Larsen, L 2010, Medical Ethics For Dummies, For Dummies. World Public Opinion 2008, World Publics Reject Criminal Penalties for Abortion, World Public Opinion: Global Public Opinion on International Affairs, viewed on 19 January, 2011, Zastrow, C 2009, Introduction to Social Work and Social Welfare: Empowering People, Cengage Learning Publisher. Read More