Abortion is Morally Wrong

Is Abortion Morally Wrong? Abortion Is the intended termination of a human pregnancy, many think that It Is morally wrong In all cases, but can It be considered as morally permissible? Thou shall not kill, but what is really considered murder? Who draws the line on which murder should be permissible and which should not? You might want to get rid of bugs that may appear in your house and you squash them, which is not morally wrong but killing another human being with a cruel intent to harm them would be considered morally wrong?

In the mold-sass states started to pass laws making It Illegal to carry out an abortion. The motivations for anta-abortion laws varied from state to state. One of the reasons included fears that the population would be dominated by the children of newly arriving immigrants, whose birth rates were higher than those of “native” Anglo-Saxon women. The real issue at hand regarding the abortion debate is not the women’s rights or other factors but the status of the unborn fetus.

Participants of the personal choice argument suggest that the unborn fetus is not a human being, but If he unborn child Is Indeed a human person, then no amount of freedom Justifies Its elective termination. Therefore prophetic debaters has made an argument stating the question by presupposing their conclusions, they are only plausible if and only if the unborn are not human persons.

Maybe in a since the abortion choice advocate argues that although the embryo is a human, it Is not a human being who has an intrinsic value yet. But this argument seems tainted, for how could size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency have any bearing on whether or not the unborn human Is a person? A errors is not a person because of how large he is, how developed he is, where he is, and what he depends on for survival.

Maybe we would consider a two year old to be an intrinsically valuable person when compared to an adult or teenager even though he is smaller, less developed, and more dependent on others. Moreover, it is not at all clear how a Journey of a few Inches through the birth canal miraculously changes a “non-valuable mass of tissue” Into a valuable human person. There are deferent ways around abortion. Many people should take extra precautions to avoid the risk in becoming pregnant if they are not responsible to ease a child they should become abstinent.

Abstinence is the act of restraining from sexual intercourse, many people should really consider being abstinent if they are willing and able, especially if the circumstances are not reliable, or by using reliable contraceptives If they are having what would otherwise be procreative sex. If a person does have an unwanted pregnancy, they have a moral obligation to seek an abortion as soon as possible, while the moral implications are minimal at most.

Waiting until later in the pregnancy and then aborting, or using even late-first- remitter abortion as a sort of birth control, seems to have a similar moral quality to drowning a cat or habitually torturing rodents to death. It might not be all the way to the side of murder, but It causes egregious and unnecessary suffering of something with a degree of self-awareness. I don’t know enough biology to say so definitively, morally impermissible. Rose’s prima facie duties were set out to try and come to a morally permissible outcome that essentially results in the better of two options, though this is not simple consequentiality.

In the case of an abortion you have two conditions to consider: the libeling wants and needs of the mother and the wellbeing wants and need of her unborn child. Prima Facie duties focus essentially on bringing about a decision which is respective of the core moral values for the individual. So it would depend on the circumstances. I think that Ross wouldn’t allow a convenience abortion, or an abortion that takes place simply to avoid a woman’s pregnancy, because one would not be respecting the child.

However, if the pregnancy was causing some harm to the mother, or perhaps she was under-age and therefore in danger, I think Ross would reason that the pregnancy could be ethically aborted. Since the Supreme Court handed down its 1973 decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, states have engineered a lattice work of abortion law, codifying, regulating and limiting whether, when and under what circumstances a woman may obtain an abortion. In 39 states they require an abortion to be performed by a licensed physician.

In 20 states they require an abortion to be performed in a hospital after a specific point in the pregnancy, and 18 states require the involvement of a second physician after a specified point. In 41 states they prohibit abortions, generally except when necessary o protect the woman’s life or health, after a specified point in pregnancy, most often fetal viability. In 17 states they use their own funds to pay for all or most medically necessary abortions for Medicaid enrollees in the state.

In 32 states and the District of Columbia prohibit the use of state funds except in those cases when federal funds are available, where the woman’s life is in danger or the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. In noncompliance of federal requirements, South Dakota limits funding to cases of life endangerment only. Abortion should be pro-choice but only or a legit reason rot Just to abort because you are irresponsible and not ready to carry on the role of a parent. According to Anural pro-choice America, “We believe that women should have option to choose abortion. Kant was anti-happiness and therefore he should be classified as anti-abortion. “Not every wrong idea is an indication of a fundamental philosophical evil in a person’s convictions; the anti- abortion stand is such an indication. There is no room for an error of knowledge in this issue and no venal excuse: the anti-abortion stand is horrifying because it is on-venal because no one has anything to gain from it and, therefore, its motive is pure ill will toward mankind. Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life. ” A piece of protoplasm has no rights?and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *