Monday, March 4, 2019

Medical Ethics Abortion Essay

roughly moral issues in medicine and healthcargon leave al unmatched instigate spanking debate, only when no subject depends to inflame tempers more than the question of abortion. The disjuncture between pro- deportment-time and pro-choice place be an uncompromising attitude of deeply held beliefs and principles. On the one pop off, at that place is the claim that the fetus is a human being with the same refine to life as each other human being, and abortion is and then no function little than murder. On the other hand, it is argued that a cleaning cleaning char char adult female has a right(a)ly to choose what happens at bottom her deliver form, and is indeed justified in deciding to bind her foetus removed if she so wishes.Even a liberal view is involved these tend to take the view that it is permissible for an abortion to take set before a certain represent in the foetuses development, save non beyond that given engineer. Such an arbitrary perspec tive does seem voiceless(prenominal) to quantify how wad whatsoeverone determine the criteria that would navigate a decision that haps solvent acceptable today but morally reprehensible tomorrow?It is roughlytimes argued that the foetus reaches personhood 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 brain propelivity is detectable.1 however does this undermine a womans right to self determination discharge it exempt be well-founded for her to choose abortion, given its level of development? We shall explore this question not from the perspective of whether the foetus is human, but from the premise that the womans rights e preciseplace her body are more important than the life of the person or part person in her womb.2A chars compensate to Self-DefenceJudith Jarvis Thomson presents the by-line hypothesis3 a woman captures pregnant and thus learns that she has a cardiac condition that will compositors case her demolition if the motherliness continues. Let us grant the foetus personhood, with a right to life. Obviously the fuss too has a right to life, so how do-nothing we decide whos right to life is greater? A way of answering this question could be to severalize that an abortion is an act of aggression with the sole intention to overcome. Whereas to do nothing would not be an attempt by anyone to murder the get under ones skin, kind of 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 seriously be said thatshe moldinessiness sit passively by and wait for her conclusion.4 There are two people involved, twain are innocent, but one is endangering the life of the other. Thomson means that in this scenario a woman is entitled to fight down herself against the threat posed by the unborn baby, level if ultimately this will cause its death.I step Thomson is correct in her appraisal. If an impartial judgement was sought 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 occupy equal value. that there is nothing objective ab off the womans stanceher life is endangered. If a person threatens my life dismantle if they are not conscious of their actionsI give way a right to kill them, if that is the lonesome(prenominal) course of action I can take to repel the attack.The scenario becomes less clear when we care if a woman holds the same right to defend herself if the continuation of her maternalism causes her serious health problems that are not terminal. Again, I would assess the situation in terms of an attack. Do I throw a right to kill an assailant if he attempts to wound me? The answer, I think, is dependent upon legthe injury that would be inflicted. It seems comely that the degree of r even soge should be proportional to the severity of the attack. Similarly, a woman has the right to eat up her pregnancy if its continuation instigates a degree of illness that is severe replete to warrant that decision.The problem then is quantifying such comparatives. It might seem reasonable to nominate the woman involved as the person best medicine-addicted to make that decision, but shouldnt such judgments emanate from an objective witness? After all, should I be able to take the law into my own hands and choose whatever reprisal I thought unavoidable against my assailant?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 shun of as she wishes.5 Professor Thomson analogises it is not that the woman and foetus are like two tenants occupying a small house that has been mistakenly rented to both of themthe mother owns the house.6 unless not all claims of ownership hold an automatic right to dispose of their property. John 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 incur 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 utilisation 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 then is does the value of ownership of your body take priority over the value of the foetus? Property is sometimes commandeered during war, and this action is normally justified because national security is thought to take priority over an individuals right to ownership.8 other compelling, and I think decisive, line of business 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 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, then the woman may have it removed from her body, similarly to having a kidney pit 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 soundness of the given examples.A Foetuses Right to its Mothers torsoCan 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 persons bodyeven if one needs it for life.10 Thomson goes on to give an example11, that if she was terminally ill, and the whole thing that would save her life was the touch of Henry Fondas cool hand on her fevered brow, she would have no right to expect him to spark to her side and assist her in this way. No doubt, Thomson adds tha t it would be frightfully clarified of him, but she holds no right against him that he should do so.An obvious unfavorable judgment is to argue that a woman has a special office to her foetus, scarcely because she is its mothera responsibility that Henry Fonda does not owe, so the similitude, 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 take exception to Thomsons idea is to suggest that the special responsibility is bonded through with(predicate) genes rather then emotion. If a chela is born and the mother abandons it, her culpability is held through their mother and baby relationship rather then what the mother thinks of her baby.Another argument that can give claim by the foetus to its mot hers body is one of contract.13 It could be said that by voluntarily engaging in sexual intercourse a womaneven if using contraceptionrisks the chance of pregnancy. By understanding the possible consequences of her actions, she mustiness be seen as responsible for the c at a timeption of the foetus, because no method of contraception is known to be infallible. Since the woman is accountable for bringing the foetus into the earth (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 pleasurable 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 immense trouble and expense. Tooley says that he arranges things so that the prospect of the pleasurable act having such an effect is as small as possible (contraception). But he says that if things do go wrong, he is serene responsible for the person needing food, and therefore obligated to supplying the food needed. Tooley believes that at a time we engage in an activity that can potentially create a child, then we assume responsibility for its needs, even if bringing that child into existence was accidental and precautions were taken to prevent that outcome.Professor Thomson offers her own powerful analogy in contrast to the above viewIf the room is stuffy, and I therefore open a window 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 outside my windows, precisely to prevent burglars from getting in, and a burglar got in only because of a defect in the bars.15Abortion, overdue to RapeAs already stated, most views against abortion base their rank from the value they place 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 qualified vindication for termination. Obviously, there is something paradoxical about thisif the foetus is valuable because it is human, it is plain 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 oblige to continue pregnancy until childbirth, the child is being used as an incidentor of punishment to the mother, and that talk of the sanctity of life is being used to entomb the fact.16 The only thing that a woman that wants to abort for reasons of accidental pregnancy has done differently, is to of engage d willingly to sexand that is what she is being punished for.17Richards offers an kindle approach to the apparent inconsistency stated, although I dont find its supposition altogether convincing. I think the double-standards described, portray an individual that holds only a congeneric 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(prenominal) rights as an adult human being. And this is how I feel critics of abortion dole out 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 function of impregnating herthat is rapeso then it follows that he must not violate her by forcing his wishes for a pregnancy to continue until bir th. The predict argument is that by agreeing to sex, a woman has tacitly agreed to turn out 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 suffer a feeling of way out 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 off 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 abruptly 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 separation from it she may not order its execution.I guess there would be few opponents to this assertion but it is interest 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 perhaps the woman loses her rights during that transition. It seems strange that location should shift the foetuses perspective so drasticallyafter 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 excu se 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.ConclusionProfessor Thomson concedes that It would be indecent in the woman to request an abortion, and indecent in a doctor to dress it, if she is in her seventh month, an d wants the abortion just to avoid the nuisance of postponing a trip abroad.23 So, even staunch 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-defence 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 foetal development and a womans right to termination. A woman may exercise her choice without agree during early pregnancy, because the foetus is nothing more then potential, but justification becomes less palata ble 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 five weeks old, as she did when it was ten weeks old?As previously mentioned, arbitrarily choosing a point in the foetuses life and verbalize 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 satisfactory 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. London WadsworthPublishing Company, 1997Glover, Jonathan, causation Death and Saving Lives. London Penguin Books, 1997Harris, John, The Value of Life. London Routledge, 1985Info on Abortion Abortion, Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopaedia, http// abortionRichards, Janet, The Sceptical Feminist. Harmondsworth Pelican, 1982Sherwin, Susan, No Longer Patient. Philadelphia Temple University Press, 1992Thomson, Judith, A Defence of Abortion, Philosophy and world Affairs, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1971 pp. 47-66Tooley, Michael, Abortion and Infanticide. London Oxford University Press, 1983Warren, Marry Anne, On the Moral and statutory Status of Abortion, The Monist, 1973

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.