Rewriting Possibility: 99%
Is terminating a pregnancy morally Justified? Abortion has always been a major hot topic In the United States, and rightly so since abortion happens to be a matter of religion, politics, science, and human rights. This Issue touches upon the core of every humans principles, and whether It Is well thought out, or little thought of; most U. S. Citizens do claim to be either pro-life or pro-choice. This means they are for the unborn fulfilling Its life, or alternatively, Glenn the mother the right to choose.
The question that cannot seem to be answered is the one at the core of the issue, which if ever answered, might once and for all lay the matter to rest Is the unborn a moral entity that holds value to the extent of a human being? The response is a lot more complicated than a simple yes or no. Although the unborn, once conceived, has the potential for life, biologically the fetus does not begin to “live” until the second trimester. An abortion is “the termination of the unborn as a result of its destruction” (Archetypal).
There is an open ended amount of reasons to terminate the fetus within its mother’s womb. A spontaneous abortion is one outside of the mother’s choice In the form of miscarriage. This holds no ethical Implications because It Is beyond a choice, whether from neglect or natural causes. A therapeutic abortion Is normally a professionals medical response to terminate for reasons of risk to the health of either the mother or the fetus. This holds very little critical judgment from the public or from the ethical world because it is for a legitimate reason.
The elective abortion is one in which there is a deliberate intent to destroy the unborn for personal reasons. This form of termination is the one that raises great concerns in the field of ethics. Americans tend to divide human life into two eyelids. The first is from conception to birth. The second is birth to death. But human life in fact goes through many stages of development, particularly in the first field. There is a point from conception to birth where the fetus Is only the potential for life before it Is an actual living entity within the womb.
There are several items of criteria to determine whether something is a living being. Not one but all of the Items must be present on the checklist to establish that something Is a being or an object. Firstly, It must take In nourishment. It Is only by week two after conception that the umbilical cord is formed. Before that the fetus only absorbs the nutrients from the mother’s body just like any other part belonging to the body. Secondly, to determine life, something must have the capacity to excrete waste. Once again this begins in week two for a human fetus. A living being must have the capacity to grow.
The fetus does indeed begin growing from the moment of its creation. Next, the being must be able to establish homeostasis. This means one’s internal environment must be regulated. The fetus is one hundred percent dependent on its carrier like a parasite. All if its bodily roles can only function by its attachment to the mother for the full term of pregnancy. Furthermore, the fetus does not have a heartbeat, backbone, or nervous spite until the third week and the brain begins to form only In the fourth week. Most Importantly, all human beings must be able to breathe.
The fetus uses the umbilical cord to receive oxygen but will not use Its own lungs until moments after birth. Because the unborn is not in a stable and constant able to reproduce as a condition for life. The fetus, if a female will not be able to reproduce until its maturity well after birth. Even if it became a male, reproduction processes are only available after further development out of the womb. The sex of the fetus is not even determined until the seventh month in the third trimester of It is only after the thirteenth week that the unborn fetus feels pain, pregnancy. As well developed organs, a rapid, constant heartbeat, and uses all of its senses. All of the signs of life with the exception of complete homeostasis are fully recognized from the second trimester. The whole reason that it takes nine months until birth can occur is that the fetus will not be able to reach its potential to become a human Ewing until that period of time. Because it is already established by ethicists that it is morally correct to try and alleviate suffering when possible, it must in turn, be directly wrong to create suffering.
Consequently, because the fetus does not feel pain and is not even completely human until after the first trimester, and is also a physical attachment of the mother, it is completely at the mothers will in that time, to choose whether the unborn should ever become a life. Americans must also consider that there are species with all of the conditions of existence in place that old little to no moral value. For instance, any plant takes in nourishment via the sun. They excrete oxygen back into the air. They are constantly at a rate of growth and development.
They achieve homeostasis by being synchronized and regulated under normal conditions. Finally, they are able to reproduce asexually. We can apply the same systems effectively to bacteria. With all of the similarities between the two forms of life mentioned and humans, it is a surprise how little it means to someone to destroy bacteria with a chemical spray or antibiotics, or to rip out living flowers room where they reside and immediately or eventually deprive them of their life. Eggs in general hold no moral value although they too have the potential for life, but the human egg for some reason, is held to a higher esteem.
The western world usually holds an anthropocentric mentality, where the world revolves around human beings, but profile advocates all of a sudden make use of their proficient ideals where the world revolves around the living. In the United States, there has been great political debate and action over abortion. Many laws have come about in each state that regulate, restrict, or even abolish the right to abort the fetus. However, there is a difference between the legal and moral issue. The legal question is at what point if at all, should the state intervene in the matter?
While the moral question is “whether the action itself is moral? Is the termination of the unborn the right thing to do” (Archetypal)? At this point it is important to acknowledge the four positions. There are several points of view that one can attest to in their outlook on abortion. In today’s very liberal society ever growing in the United States, there is a large group that believes that an abortion is “morally permissible at any time, for any reason, and under any circumstance. ” In this argument “the unborn has no moral status” (Archetypal).
Thus, for any motive, the mother can cease the pregnancy. The predicament is that the mother, and those that are involved, may or may not be competent to make a wise Judgment. The second position states “an abortion is morally acceptable under most circumstances. ” This means the “unborn has a limited moral does relate to the concept that an abortion by the mother’s will is completely ethical in the first trimester for any reason. It coincides with the idea because the unborn as no moral status for the first three months, and then once it has turned into a life form, it receives its right to live.
The third position claims that “an abortion is almost never morally acceptable except in very particular or extreme conditions. ” Position three clearly observes that “the unborn has a definite moral status” (Archetypal). This would be like in some cases of rape, incest, or in the hazard of health to the mother or fetus. Those that take this position believe that the unborn should receive the rights of a human being except for in severe circumstances where it is overruled. The problem is that how can the public choose who may be worthy enough to decide which situations require an abortion and which do not?
Lastly, the fourth position declares that “An abortion is never morally Justified under any condition. The unborn has an absolute moral status” (Archetypal). This theory poses many dilemmas. Once again, who has the right to say that abortion is never acceptable when every occurrence is very different? At the very least it should be Judged case by case to be completely ethical. In addition, if the fetus’ life is so valuable then why is the other’s life not as valuable in comparison when facing a life or death situation?
In position four, if it were between the mother and potential child to survive, the possible child would prevail. There are three critical arguments created by ethicists that have been disputed because of various loopholes. The Argument from Potentiality states: Every human being has a right to life. The unborn is potentially a human being. The unborn has a right to life. Abortion is immoral. (Archetypal) This is problematic because according to this argument, abortion is immoral solely on he basis that the unborn is potentially a human being.
The issue is not the unborn has potential to be human, but that it is not yet in fact a human. Potentiality does not equal actuality. Argument two, the Bodily Rights Argument says: Every woman has rights and autonomy of her own body. The unborn is part of the woman’s body. The mother has rights and autonomy over the unborn. Abortion is moral. (Archetypal) Those that are opposed to this argument may say that “something can still be a moral entity and still be attached to someone else” (Archetypal). But what is another example off living being that is attached to omen else?
One may think of a parasite that holds no value in morality. Others may think of Siamese twins who are two separate human beings that are physically attached. This is a separate ethical issue with its own arguments in itself. Nevertheless, every individual has a right to their own body, as long as they are not harming anyone else. In the U. S. At the age of twenty-one, everyone is considered an adult that is completely responsible over him or herself. The third argument is called, The Argument from a Negative Social Impact, which states: The value of the unborn is elated to the mother desiring it.
The birth of an unwanted child could have a negative social impact. Abortion eliminates that likelihood. Abortion is moral. (Archetypal) But not being desired by one person does not mean not being desired at all by anyone. Also, the possibility that the child could have a negative social impact does not mean that it will definitely have a negative social impact. Although predict what will happen in the future, but we can speculate according to how we feel about it now. If the mother does not desire the unborn that is growing inside re now, she will probably become a neglectful parent after the child has been born later.
Because the criteria of the unborn having moral status mainly relies on its ability to feel pain and therefore would suffer from an abortion, the greatest opposition would express their objection with the example of a fully recognized human being that has lost their capacity to feel pain, such as an individual that has been paralyzed. Have they lost their moral value? The answer is no for several reasons. For one, the paraplegic in fact has already become a fully recognized human being. The point is that someone who has already established moral value will always maintain it.
Additionally someone who is physically paralyzed may still have the capacity to feel emotional suffering, which is held on the same scale as physical suffering. Unlike the unborn in the first trimester, there is or has been brain activity as well as awareness of life. In conclusion, an abortion is morally Justified in the first three months of pregnancy by the mother’s choice, for any reason. The reason why is because by the second trimester, the unborn has already begun the use of brain functions. It can utilize all of its senses and most of all can feel pain.