Abortion – Morally Permissible or Not?

Pregnancy is the most wonderful period in the life of a woman, during which in her body a tiny creature – her baby grows. This period is unforgettable as it helps many women find a sense in life and fulfill the most important obligation – to give birth. However, it is not always so good and joyful. Sometimes, a baby is not desirable for a woman. There are many reasons for it: poverty, poor health, bad relationships with the baby’s father, desire to live independently, among many others. At such a situation, a woman has to choose whether to have an abortion or not. She faces the question whether it is permissible to do it or not. However, it is difficult to find an answer as the abortion has always been the most controversial subject of debate between “Pro – choice” and “Pro–life” representatives. From the point of view of moral, to kill a fetus is the same as to kill a man; that is why abortion is not morally permissible.
The first moral rule that proves that abortion cannot be treated as morally permissible is known as the idea of impartiality. According to it, each individual’s interests are equally important; from within the moral point of view, there are no privileged persons. It means that there cannot be a choice between to kill or to save a fetus. Nevertheless, pro–choice people as a counterargument offer to consider the situation when abortion is the only solution. For example, the life of a fetus should be sacrificed in order to save the life of his/her mother. They point out that as a woman decides to kill her unborn baby, not because of her wishes, but because of difficult almost unsolved combination of troubles, such a decision can be justified by moral. In addition, they prove their position by the argument that altruism should be self – defeating. If a man accepts the ethics of altruism, his first concern is not how to live his life, but how to sacrifice it. It means that such a man and, in the case of abortion, woman makes the harm to her own well-being. Nevertheless, it seems that the pro–choice philosophers do not fully understand the meaning of moral. This sphere of knowledge does not have any exceptions. According to Kant and his theory of the Categorical Imperative, moral laws consist of absolute values, which do not change their meanings in regard to the situation. Dealing with the abortion, it means that no one has the right to choose whether to save one life and sacrifice the other or vice versa.
The second moral rule, which proves that abortion is morally prohibited, can be defined as the idea of the human dignity. It is based on Kant’s theory that human beings occupy a special place in creation. In addition, Western moral tradition states that all human lives are precious, regardless of race, age, handicap, or social class. That is why the life of people should be valued and protected. According to it, as a fetus is a representative of human species, its life should be protected, as well. Nevertheless, many pro–choice philosophers refute this argument by the fact that a fetus cannot be treated as an actual person. They believe that the abortion is morally permissible because a fetus is only a creature that has the potential to become someone. Michael Tooley, in the article “Abortion and Infanticide,” supports this opinion. He asserts that the right to live should not be guaranteed to the fetus as the fetus possesses no experience and has no self-consciousness. For some people, it may sound as the thesis that has the right to be accepted as, in fact, a fetus, and even a newborn baby, is very similar to a flowerpot that fades without human’s care and watering. Moreover, no one asks permission to pick a flower from it or even dig it. However, on the other hand, if society does not give a chance for a fetus to grow and become conscientious human beings, humanity has no chance to survive. In addition, there are many concrete arguments, which prove that a fetus has actual feelings and desires. Some of them are based on the videos that show how a fetus tries to escape from the scalpel. Moreover, even if a pregnant woman simply thinks about abortion, a fetus begins to behave in a strange way; its heartbeat accelerates, and movements enliven. In addition, even the analysis of the counterargument, presented in the article “Abortion and Infanticide” by Michael Tooley, shows that the opinion about actual desires and feelings of fetus is true. Tooley gives the example about a man in a coma:
The second set of situations are ones in which an individual is unconscious for some reason-that is, he is sleeping, or drugged, or in a temporary coma. Does the individual in such a state have any desires? People do sometimes say that an unconscious individual wants something, but it might be argued that if such talk is not to be simply false it must be interpreted as actually referring to the desires the individual would have if he were now conscious.
Thereby, as well as the desires of a person in a coma should be respected (his/her future desires when he/she comes to life), the desires of a fetus should be respected also (his/her future desires when he/she comes to this world). Thereby, taking into consideration the respect to desires of a sleeping person, desires of a fetus should be treated with the same respect. It means that killing it is the same as killing a person while he is in a coma, in a defenseless state. In addition, abortion causes drawbacks not only for the fetus, whose affiliation to human species is doubted, but also for mothers, who cannot be treated in other way as actual people. Abortion has a bad influence both on the mental and physical health of the mother-to-be because the mother and child are inextricably linked from the day of conception. Although many people think that it is not true as maternal instinct in many women does not even appear after the birth of a child, there are many examples that can prove the contrary. For instance, if to cut the hand from a woman, she will suffer from severe physical pain, as well as from deep depression because the hand is part of her body, and without it she cannot perform many functions. The same thing is with abortion – apart from extreme pain, it brings to a woman the feeling of desolation. Moreover, abortion may result in infertility. It is estimated that the risk of a pregnancy loss after three successive abortions is 30 – 45%.
Nevertheless, moral is not the only domain, which rules the life of people. From the point of view of the law, abortion is permissible. For example, after the case of the Roe v. Wade in Texas in 1970, where an unmarried pregnant woman using the alias Jane Roe filed suit against Dallas Country district attorney Henry Wade claiming the right to have an abortion, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Jane Roe, thereby establishing a woman’s constitutional right to have a termination during the first two trimesters of pregnancy. On the one hand, it may seem that the law is fully on the side of the pro-choice. Nevertheless, there are many examples, which prove that it is a false assumption. There are many measures, the main goal of which is to limit the scope of the Roe’s decision. In 1976, the Congress passed the Hyde Amendment that proscribed federal funding for abortion. In 1989, Missouri legislators voted to deny the use of public facilities and employees to perform the abortion; a law was upheld by the Supreme Court in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services. In 2003, the Congress passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Act that outlawed abortions conducted by a procedure known as intact dilation and evacuation; a law was upheld by the Supreme Court in Gonzalez v. Carbart and Gonzalez v. Planned Parenthood. That is why it becomes clear that not only moral but also law tries to restrict the usage of abortion.
To sum up, there are many opinions concerning abortion and the permission of it. Some people believe that the life of a human being is the most important value, and that is the reason why killing of a fetus is a crime. Others state that a fetus cannot be treated as a human being as it does not have consciousness. If to take into consideration moral, especially Kant’s theory of the Categorical Imperative, it becomes clear that representatives of the first position are absolutely right. The main reason for it is the main law of moral, based on the greatest value of the human life and absence of any exceptions to it. The representatives of the second opinion may find the assurance that their position is correct in law, as, in the US, the practice of abortion is allowed. Nevertheless, even in this sphere, it becomes clear that abortion is not regarded as a positive notion. Moreover, from the point of view of general logic, the harm of abortion is obvious. If humanity starts killing babies even not giving them a chance for life, there is a high probability that it will turn into a flock of animals, which in the pursuit of pleasure and profit kills its own future. The only difference between killing a man and killing a fetus is that the fetus is defenseless.
Check out a similar article about the notion of feminism on https://exclusive-paper.net/essays/free-speech-examples/gender-discrimin....