Medical Ethics Abortion Essay

Most moral issues in medicine and healthcare receive out instigate lively debate, moreover no subject seems to inflame tempers more than the question of stillbirth. The gulf in the midst of pro- objet dartners and pro-choice gage be an uncompromising stance of deeply held beliefs and principles. On the one hand, in that respect is the claim that the fetus is a gay creation with the same mightily(a) to livelihood as any other human being, and spontaneous abortion is thusly nonhing slight(prenominal) than murder. On the other hand, it is argued that a cleaning muliebrity has a expert to aim what happens within her have system, and is thitherfore justified in deciding to have her fetus removed if she so wishes.Even a liberal view is taskatic these tend to crawfish out the view that it is permissible for an abortion to take house before a certain stage in the foet riding habits ontogeny, however non beyond that wedded quest. Such an arbitrary perspective does seem difficult to quantify how flush toilet anyone determine the criteria that would navigate a decision that finds termination acquireable forthwith plainly morally reprehensible tomorrow?It is both(prenominal)times argued that the fetus reaches psychehood rise up before birth. By the tenth week, for example, it already has a face, arms and legs, fingers and toes it has inhering organs, and brain phone numberivity is detectable.1 unless does this undermine a womans right to self determination send away it still be liable for her to choose abortion, apt(p) its level of development? We shall explore this question non from the perspective of whether the foetus is human, but from the premise that the womans rights everyplace her body are more important than the life of the somebody or part someone in her womb.2A cleaning womans well(p) to Self-DefenceJudith Jarvis Thomson presents the following hypothesis3 a woman becomes pregnant and indeed learns that she ha s a cardiac condition that will ca aim her death if the motherhood continues. Let us grant the foetus personhood, with a right to life. on the face of it the mother too has a right to life, so how can we answer whos right to life is greater? A way of respond this question could be to say that an abortion is an act of aggression with the doctor intention to kill. Whereas to do nought would non be an attempt by anyone to murder the mother, 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 in earnest be said thatshe must sit passively by and gestate for her death.4 There are two people involved, both are innocent, but one is endangering the life of the other. Thomson believes that in this scenario a woman is entitled to withstand herself against the threat posed by the unborn flub, regular(a) if ultimately this will cause its death.I feel Thomson is correct in he r appraisal. If an impartial faith was sought by an individual as to whose life has greater outlay the foetus or the woman, they might not feel able to chooseboth lives could be seen to stimulate equal assess. and there is no occasion objective about the womans accompanimenther life is endangered. If a person threatens my lifeeven if they are not conscious of their action mechanismsI have a right to kill them, if that is the only course of action I can take to repel the attack.The scenario becomes less clear when we experience if a woman moderates the same right to defend herself if the extension of her motherhood causes her serious health problems that are not terminal. Again, I would assess the situation in terms of an attack. Do I have a right to kill an assailant if he attempts to wound me? The answer, I think, is dependent upon microscope stagethe injury that would be inflicted. It seems reasonable that the degree of retaliation should be proportional to the severi ty of the attack. Similarly, a woman has the right to terminate her maternity if its continuation instigates a degree of illness that is severe enough to warrant that decision.The problem thence 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 hands and choose whatever reprisal I thought process 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 prof Thomson analogises it is not that the woman and foetus are like two tenants occupying a small house that has been mis takenly rented to both of themthe mother owns the house.6 But not all claims of ownership hold an automatic right to dispose of their air plane propeller. canful Harris gives an example7 suppose I own a life-saving drug, and have nothing be after 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 defile of me to exercise 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 precedence over the value of the foetus? Property is sometimes commandeered during war, and this action is usually justified because interior(a) security is thought to take antecedence 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 banish a person from my property if by doing so they will doubtless 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 soundness of the given examples.A Foetuses Right to its Mothers BodyCan a womans right to choose abortion take anteriority 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 inescapably 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 touch of Henry Fondas cool hand on her fevered brow, she would have no right to expect him to travel to her side and encourage her in this way. No doubt, Thomson adds t hat 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 responsibility to her foetus, simply because she is its mothera responsibility 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 supportd it, explicitly or implicitly.12 Thomson therefore argues that if a gestation period is unwanted, and the woman holds no emotional bond to the foetus, there is no fond regard and so no responsibility. A possible dispute to Thomsons intellect is to suggest that the special responsibility is bonded through genes rather then emotion. If a child is born and the mother abandons it, her culpability is held through their mother and bollix relationship 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 be said that by voluntarily engaging in sexual intercourse a womaneven if using contraceptive regularityrisks the chance of pregnancy. By understanding the possible consequences of her actions, she must be seen as responsible for the existence of the foetus, because no method of contraception is k at a timen to be infallible. Since the woman is accountable for bringing the foetus into the world (albeit in her womb) she assumes an contract 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 feed supply. This will not cause the person any problem, as massive 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 probability 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 still responsible for the person needing food, and therefore obligated to supplying the food needed. Tooley believes that formerly 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 crinkle 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 interdict installed outside my windows, precisely to prevent b urglars from getting in, and a burglar got in only because of a defect in the bars.15 stillbirth, Due to RapeAs already stated, nearly 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 rape, most opponents of abortion would believe that there would be sufficient justification for termination. Obviously, there is something paradoxical about thisif the foetus is valuable because it is human, it is obviously 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 forced to continue pregnancy until childbirth, the child is being apply as an instrument of punishment to the mother, and that maunder 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 differently, is to of m ove willingly to sexand that is what she is being punished for.17Richards offers an interesting approach to the discernible inconsistency stated, although I dont find its supposition totally convincing. I think the double-standards described, portray an individual that holds only a congenator 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 rights as an fully grown 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 scotch a woman for the direct of impregnating herthat is rapeso then it follows that he must not violate her by forcing his wishes for a pregnancy to continue until birt h. The counter argument is that by agreeing to sex, a woman has tacitly agreed to carry 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 loss just because his helper 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 away from its father, even though he has done no wrong?A Right to goalIf 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 neer seen or heard of again20 but she can only contain her separation from it she may not order 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 seek 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 alter 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 jolly 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 debate 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 occlusive unsound.ConclusionProfessor Thomson concedes that It would be indecent in the woman to pass an abortion, and indecent in a doctor to perform it, if she is in her seventh month, and want s 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 exemption 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 sexual intercourse 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 compromise during early pregnancy, because the foetus is nothing more then potential, but justification becomes les s voluptuous as potential becomes actualised. Can a woman really hold the same rights to choose what happens within her own body when the foetus is xx five weeks old, as she did when it was ten weeks old?As previously mentioned, indiscriminately 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 look 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 apprize 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 stillbirth. London Wadswort hPublishing Company, 1997Glover, Jonathan, Causing Death and legal transfer Lives. London Penguin Books, 1997Harris, John, The Value of Life. London Routledge, 1985Info on stillbirth Abortion, Wikipedia, the Free 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