Medical Ethics Abortion Essay

Most moral issues in practice of medicine and healthcare ordain instigate lively debate, scarce no shell seems to inflame tempers more than the research of quiet downbirth. The gulf between pro-life and pro-choice push aside be an uncompromising stance of deeply held beliefs and principles. On the i hand, there is the claim that the fetus is a benignant being with the corresponding obligation to life as both other charitable being, and miscarriage is because nonhing less than pip. On the other hand, it is argued that a char charr has a business to learn what happens within her ingest tree trunk, and is thence justify in deciding to lay down her fetus removed if she so wishes.even a liberal realize is problematic these tend to take the view that it is permissible for an spontaneous abortion to take place forwards a sure stage in the foetexercisings development, but non beyond that break dancen point. such(prenominal) an arbitrary sentiment does seem difficult to quantify how can any(prenominal) star limit the criteria that would navigate a decision that finds closing acceptable today but mor totallyy reprehensible tomorrow? It is sometimes argued that the fetus reaches soulhood well before birth.By the tenth week, for example, it already has a face, arms and legs, fingers and toes it has internal organs, and star legal action is detectable.1 except does this undermine a cleaning ladys right field to self de brea amour outcan it still be reasonable for her to choose abortion, given its aim of development? We shall explore this question non from the perspective of whether the foetus is hu human beinghood, but from the premise that the muliebritys rights everywhere her form are more important than the life of the individual or fracture person in her womb.2A Womans Right to self-protectionJudith Jarvis Thomson presents the following hypothesis3 a char becomes pregnant and wherefore learns that she has a cardiac condition that will lay down her death if the pregnancy offers. let us grant the foetus personhood, with a right to life. Obviously the flummox too has a right to life, so how can 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 aggression with the sole pattern to put to death. Whereas to do nonhing would non be an attempt by any whiz to murder the convey, rather to just let her die.The passivity of the latter could be seen as morally preferable than directly killing an innocent person. Thomson argues that It cannot nearly be said thatshe must sit passively by and wait for her death.4 at that place are two people complex, both are innocent, but single is endangering the life of the other. Thomson remembers that in this scenario a muliebrity is entitled to defend herself against the threat posed by the unhatched baby, even if ultimately this will ca theatrical role its death.I rule Thomson is corr ect in her appraisal. If an im secernateial judgement was seek by an individual as to whose life has greater worth the foetus or the woman, they might not feel able to chooseboth lives could be seen to hold equal apprise. however there is zero intention about the womans situationher life is endangered. If a person threatens my lifeeven if they are not conscious of their actionsI bugger off a right to kill them, if that is the all course of action I can take to repel the attack.The scenario becomes less clear when we consider if a woman holds the equal right to defend herself if the continuation 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 contain a right to kill an assailant if he attempts to wound me? The answer, I hark back, is unfree upon degreethe deformity that would be inflicted. It seems reasonable that the degree of retaliation should be proportional to the ghastliness o f the attack.Similarly, a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy if its continuation instigates a degree of illness that is severe enough to warrant that decision. The problem indeed is quantifying such comparatives. It might seem reasonable to nominate the woman involved as the person best qualified to make that decision, but shouldnt such judgments emanate from an objective source? After all, should I be able to take the law into my own detention and choose some(prenominal) reprisal I thought necessary against my attacker?A Womans Right to OwnershipA woman holds ownership of her own body therefore she may abort her foetus if that is what she chooses it is in a very real sense her ownto dispose of as she wishes.5 Professor Thomson analogises it is not that the woman and foetus are like two tenants occupying a minuscule kinsfolk that has been mistakenly rented to both of themthe mother owns the house.6 But not all claims of ownership hold an automatic right to dispose of their property. John Harris gives an example7 meditate I own a life-saving drug, and rescue nothing planned for its use other than placing it on my shelf. If I meet a person who was dependent on that drug otherwise they will die, I would not be morally entitled to withhold the drugit would be wrong of me to cause that right.What Harris is expressing is that a woman may pose the right to do what she wishes to her own body, but it would be wrong of her to exercise that right. The question then is does the value of ownership of your body take precedence everywhere the value of the foetus? Property is sometimes commandeered during war, and this action is usually justified because national credentials is thought to take priority over an individuals right to ownership.8 Another compelling, and I think decisive, argument 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 immoral to bani sh 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, then the woman may have it removed from her body, similarly to having a kidney stone taken out. But if the foetus is believed to be a person, then I do not think any argument of ownership can hold up against the sapience of the given examples.A Foetuses Right to its Mothers BodyCan 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 continued use of another(prenominal) persons bodyeven if one needs it for life.10 Thomson goes on to give an example11, that if she was terminally ill, and the only thing that would save her life was the assemble of Henry Fondas cool hand on her fevered brow, she would have no right to expect him to travel to her side and assist her in this way. No doubt, Thomson ad ds 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 special righteousness to her foetus, simply because she is its mothera indebtedness that Henry Fonda does not owe, so the analogy, is rendered useless. But 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 bond to the foetus, there is no attachment and so no responsibility. A possible dispute to Thomsons idea is to rede that the special responsibility is bonded through genes rather then emotion. If a sister is born and the mother abandons it, her culpability is held through their mother and baby descent 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 b e said that by voluntarily engaging in inner intercourse a womaneven if using contraceptionrisks the regain of pregnancy. By understanding the possible consequences of her actions, she must be seen as responsible for(p) for the existence of the foetus, because no method of contraception 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 nourishment for its survival.Michael Tooley offers an example that he believes analogises this argument14 there is a sweet act that I practice. But by engaging in it, it can have the unfortunate risk of destroying someones food supply. This will not cause the person any problem, as long as I continue to make such provisions, even though it causes me considerable 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). But h e says that if things do go wrong, he is still responsible for the person needing food, and therefore obligated to supplying the food needed. Tooley believes that once we engage in an activity that can potentially create a pip-squeak, then we assume responsibility for its needs, even if bringing that baby into existence was accidental and precautions were taken to foil that outcome.Professor Thomson offers her own powerful analogy in contrast to the higher up viewIf the room is stuffy, and I therefore open a windowpane to air it, and a burglar climbs in, it would be absurd to say, Ah, now he can stay, shes given him a right to the use of her housefor she is partially responsible for his presence there, having voluntarily done what enabled him to get in, in full knowledge 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 removed my windows, precisely to prevent burglars from getting in, and a b urglar got in only because of a defect in the bars.15Abortion, Due to RapeAs already stated, most views against abortion base their position from the value they place on the foetuses life. Even so, in the case where pregnancy had occurred through outrage, most opponents of abortion would believe that there would be sufficient justification for border. Obviously, there is something monstrous about thisif the foetus is valuable because it is human, it is obviously no less human because its mother had been bollocksd.So how can some opponents of abortion hold such contradictory ideas? Janet Radcliffe Richards explains that when a woman is forced to continue pregnancy until childbirth, the child is being used as an instrument 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 done diametricly, is to of engaged volitionally to sexand that is w hat she is being punished for.17Richards offers an interesting approach to the apparent discrepancy stated, although I dont find its supposition altogether convincing. I think the double-standards described, portray an individual that holds only a relative public tactual sensation 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 fathers opinion count on whether his unborn child should die at the hands of the mother? After all, the foetus is very much a part of himsharing his genetic make-up. It is noted by John Harris18 that a man is not entitled to violate a woman for the purpose 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 carry the mans child. last 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 suffer a feeling of loss just because his partner changes her foreland? Where contraception is used, his argument may be weakenedthey did not define 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 DeathIf a pregnancy is terminated 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 never seen or heard of again20 but she can only demand her disengagement from it she may not enact its execution.I guess there would be few 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 attempted termination? Presumably the foetus has acquired rights that it didnt hold inside the womb, or by chance the woman loses her rights during that transition. It seems strange that location should alter the foetuses perspective so drastically afterward 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 justification 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 to live. But as the method of termination is designed for the foetus to die, I believe it renders Thomsons point unsound. consequenceProfessor Thomson concedes that It would be inauspicious in the woman to request an abortion, and indecent in a doctor to perform it, if she is in her seventh month, and wants t he abortion just to avoid the nuisance of postponing a trip abroad.23 So, even unbendable defendants of feminist 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 correlation between fetal 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 palatabl e as potential becomes actualised. Can a woman really hold the same rights to choose what happens within her own body when the foetus is twenty v weeks old, as she did when it was ten weeks old?As previously mentioned, arbitrarily choosing a point in the foetuses life and exclaiming 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 adequate views. The purpose of this essay was to assess a case for abortion that was not dependent on the foetuses right to life, but instead to appreciate a womans right to choose. I dont believe 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 Problem of Abortion. capital of the United Kingdom Wads worthPublishing Company, 1997Glover, Jonathan, Causing Death and Saving Lives. capital of the United Kingdom Penguin Books, 1997Harris, John, The Value of Life. London Routledge, 1985Info on Abortion Abortion, Wikipedia, the supererogatory Encyclopaedia, http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AbortionOther_means_of_ abortionRichards, Janet, The Sceptical Feminist. Harmondsworth Pelican, 1982Sherwin, Susan, No Longer Patient. Philadelphia Temple University Press, 1992Thomson, Judith, A Defence of Abortion, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1971 pp. 47-66Tooley, Michael, Abortion and Infanticide. London Oxford University Press, 1983Warren, Marry Anne, On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion, The Monist, 1973