Moral Standing of Abortion - Essay Example

s Moral Standing on Abortion Morality is the set standard, the yardstick through which social, economic and political decisions are justified or nullified. Anything immoral will naturally be unacceptable in the society; however the issue that arises here is that morality is a subjective term, and different people associate different variables to identify the parameters of morality. The heated debate on abortion is a result of this dilemma that morality is defined in different ways by different people. However, both sides of the spectrum advance extreme views to justify their arguments, thus ignoring the warrant i.e. the standing of the issue in the larger context. This paper is an attempt to undertake an objective approach to develop an unbiased and a logically sound thesis aiming at implying a set warrant of the issue by arguing that abortion is morally wrong and unjust, however only under special circumstances (like rape or mother`s like at risk) can abortion be justified as a morally sound decision. Abortion is defined as “the expulsion of a fetus from the uterus before it has reached the stage of viability” (Encyclopedia Britannica). The biological makeup of an embryo or a fetus, by any standard, resembles that of a human as the genetic makeup of the cells of the embryo is the same as that of a human, and the viability stage reaches at week 20 when the embryo fully resembles that of a human. Thus, at the stage of viability it would be only sane to regard abortion as an immoral act as murdering an innocent life negates all the principals of morality. However, under special circumstances, the woman may be allowed to abort the baby, especially when the woman`s life is at stake or if the baby will result in the mental trauma for the woman in case the embryo is a result of rape or sexual abuse. However, if the woman was engaged in a voluntary act which resulted in the conception of an embryo, it would be insane to kill the baby if the embryo has reached the stage of viability. Thus, in any case abortion is an immoral act as an embryo older than twenty weeks is as alive as a grown up human being. However, some cases may be considered as exceptional ones and in some special circumstances abortion can be deemed as a moral act. Firstly, when the life of the mother is at stake for the reason that giving birth to the baby will risk the life of the mother, abortion is absolutely moral. Secondly, if birth resulted from rape or any kind of sexual abuse, which would cause mental trauma as the birth would constantly remind the woman of the unfortunate incident, thus in this case the woman should have the freedom to choose if she wants the baby or not. Thirdly, factor of viability is of importance to decide whether or not abortion is immoral i.e. an embryo if any younger than twenty weeks is conceived it will be fair enough to abort the baby as it won`t be a viable one. In this case, it is important to analyze the arguments and propositions put forth by Thomason (1971) which are referred to by many pro choice advocates. Thomason (1971) tries to negate the conclusion derived by two propositions that firstly, human embryo has the right to life, and if human embryo has the right to life it is morally impermissible to kill him. Thus, it is sensible enough to conclude that it is impermissible to kill the human embryo. However, she tries to negate the conclusion by replacing the second proposition by the relative rights of the mother and the child, i.e. she claims that the mother has a right to take decisions about her body and the fetus has a right to life. In other words, she is trying to argue that the pro-life advocate will then regard abortion as a breach in the rights of the mother as opposed to the rights of the baby. Though the argument seems to be valid, but it lacks soundness as it is a clear example of the fallacy of inappropriateness. Though it is true that a mother has rights, but at the same time she should be responsible enough to take precautionary measures before she conceives an embryo otherwise it would be highly unfair to take the life of a baby. Giving birth should always be considered as a serious responsibility, thus measures should be taken beforehand to prevent pregnancy. Once she has an alive entity in her body, she can`t get rid of it whenever she wants to especially when the embryo is viable enough. Thus mother has rights to take preventive measures but abortion would be denied to her once the baby is an alive humanly entity. The same counterargument applies to the infamous violinist experiment proposed by Thomas. The infamous violinist requires the participants to imagine that they wake up in bed with an unconscious violist tied with them. This violinist has a fatal kidney disease which can only be treated if it`s tied to you, and after nine months it will be perfectly healthy and will detach itself. In such a case, allowing it to be attached with the body will be harmless and after nine months, there will be no responsibility on the mother. Thus, this is a bad analogy in the first place as the baby isn’t there by himself without a reason like the violinist, and detachment process won`t end the cycle. In real life situations, since the embryo is not at fault and has a right to live, abortion will be immoral (Thomson 1971). Moreover, Marquis associates the right of life with the social positions humans tend to seek in life (Marquis 1989). The propositions of marquis`s argument are that a human with plausible social roles in the future has the right to life and an embryo has a future standing in any case so he has the right to live. Thus, this further strengthens the position of pro-life advocates. Biological makeup of embryo as humans make them liable to live, alongside social horizons to contribute to the society further strengthens the argument that an embryo has every right to sustain and survive. However, if a mother`s life is at stake it is only reasonable to abort the baby and not give birth. The embryo has a right to life doesn`t mean that the mother doesn`t have the right to life (Boss 2010). Killing a life in self defense is always the best choice as killing oneself will never be regarded as the best moral choice. If there is choice to save either the mother or the embryo, it would merely be fanaticism to believe that it would be immoral to save the life of the mother while giving away the life of the embryo. A suicidal approach would be a biased one merely put forth to defend the position. Thus, in such a case it would only be fair to say that a life is not being taken; in fact a life is only being saved. An argument in favor of the proposition mentioned above will be the comparison of a disease owing to birth with a heart disease (Boss 2010). For instance, if a person is suffering from a heart disease, he wouldn`t consult the state or the clergy to decide if surgery is moral or not. In fact, in such a case it would be implied that saving the life should be the utmost priority. Similarly, if giving birth risks of life for the mother, the doctor has the right to decide if abortion is needed or not, and no one else. (Warren 1973) Also, if pregnancy is a result of an unlikely incident i.e. rape or sexual abuse, in such a case the women should have the right of choice to abort the baby. Applying the unconscious violinist experiment in this case, if the violinist has been imposed on the woman and though it would be kind of her to allow the violist to use her body, she has every right to take the decision for her body. The doctor`s association can`t impose the decision on her in any way as it is not her fault that she is pregnant. Embryo has the right to life doesn`t imply that the woman should be left deprived of her rights to choose. The pro-choice advocates in this case should also realize the mental condition of the woman and the social and economical constraints she will have to face even when it isn’t her fault. Thus, a moderate approach should be used in this case. Thirdly, viability will also be a major determinant of deciding the moral standing on the issue. Once a fetus becomes viable it would be unfair and immoral to discard him from the body, given that the woman had no role in voluntary acts resulting in the pregnancy. With the medical procedures being modernized, it has become easy to determine the viability, which is regarded as the twentieth week when embryo develops the form of a human body. With the advancement of the medical science for up to 24 weeks, the ruling for Joe V. Wade was negated owing to the viability factor (Boss 2010). Thus, if contraceptive measures, and methods like taking morning after pills are being used, it would be appropriate to cease opportunities for birth. Otherwise, once the fetus is viable, it would be immoral to kill a baby and take away the right to life. Thus, conclusively an embryo is as human as an adult person thus it has a complete right to life. Though the embryo is a part of woman`s body but this doesn’t mean that the woman can discard it from her life whenever she wants to. However, under special circumstances abortion becomes not only moral but also an essential decision to be taken. These circumstances include situations when the mother`s life is at stake, when the embryo is the product of a rape or sexual abuse or if the woman takes certain action (morning after pills) before the viability stage. Apart from these exceptional circumstances, it is immoral to abort the embryo as he has every right to life. Works Cited Warren, Mary Anne. "On the Moral and Legal Status of." The Problem of Abortion Vol. 57.4 (1973). Cox, D, and M Levine. "Judith Jarvis Thomson, A` Defense of Abortion', Philosophy and Public Affairs (1971)." Philosophical Papers Grahamstown. 35.2 (2006): 267-281. Print Boss, Judith A. Analyzing Moral Issues. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2010. Print. Marquis, Don. "Why Abortion Is Immoral." The Journal of Philosophy. 86.4 (1989): 183-202. Print. Read More