Creating A Moral Theory : Abortion

One of the most frequently debated topics in bioethics is the morality of abortion, or the ending of a pregnancy without physically giving birth to an infant. Often times abortions are categorized into either spontaneous, a natural miscarriage; induced or intentional, which is premeditated and for any reason; or therapeutic, which albeit intentional, its sole purpose is to save the mother’s life. It seems however that moral conflicts on issue mainly arise when discussing induced abortions. In general, people universally agree it is morally wrong to kill an innocent person and in some people’s eyes induced abortions are the intentional killings of innocent persons, thus making them immoral. However not all individuals view fetuses as persons and consequentially argue it is not morally wrong to kill them.

There is a vast number of ethical theories, whether or not you believe in those theories is a matter of opinion and personal belief. For this reason, people can take the general concept of a theory and explain it in a way that aligns with their beliefs. Personally, I feel as though there is some truth in most, if not all, ethical theories. Though, there is one theory in particular I have taken a liking to; and this theory is egoism. Egoism, in the most general terms, is a theory in which a person is motivated by their own self-interest to further their wants or goals. This theory can be interpreted in a number of ways, one of them is that it is considered selfish. Egoism, is not necessarily selfish in that it may be in your own self-interest to do something for others. To help further explain my understanding of egoism, I’d like to bring up the topic of abortion. The debate over abortion has been going on for a while. As time goes by, my opinions on the topic have changed, especially when I learn about the different arguments each side makes. I will take some arguments from both sides to help explain egoism. Through my explanation on my understanding of egoism, I will ultimately express my views on this social issue as well. Though it is important to keep in mind that my main goal is to explain each side of the debate through the views of an egoist and whether or not each side is morally sound.

Abortion has been a highly debated topic for many years. Until 1973, when abortion was legalized in the U.S., women were obtaining very dangerous abortions that often killed them in the process. Although abortion is legal now, members of society still do not agree on whether it is “right.” There are pros and cons of abortion, which can be examined by the three theoretical perspectives; Structural Functionalism, Conflict Theory, and Postmodern Theory. This essay explains what the three theoretical perspectives are and how they view the social issue of abortion.

One of the first moral issues addressed by both sides of the abortion debate concerns a pregnant woman’s so-called natural “right” to make “reproductive choices.” (“The Rights of Pregnant Women”) Anti-abortion advocacy groups claim that “the only way to actually protect the mother’s rights will be by enforcing laws that secure her child’s right to life,” (“Argument 2”) whereas pro-abortion groups contend that these laws “create a dangerous precedent for wide-ranging government intrusion into the lives of all women.” (“The Rights”) With two fundamentally contrasting viewpoints at odds with each other, it is apparent that one of the core issues concurrent with abortion is a woman’s rights versus the rights of her unborn fetus.

There are many common pregnancy alternatives, but most often the resulting decision is abortion because it is effortless. Abortion is endings a women’s pregnancy by removing or forcing a fetus or embryo from the mother’s womb before it is able to survive on its own. Not all abortions are purposely done some are spontaneous like when a women that has a miscarriage. Rather abortion is done purposely or naturally it is a worldwide complication as to it being wrong or right. Abortion is an ethical issue that will be analyzed according to a personal worldview and Christian worldview. Ethical thinking will be examined by value-based decisions that address abortion from the perspective of a Christian worldview and comparing it to a personal assumption by addressing ethical dilemma, core beliefs, resolution, evaluation, and comparison.

The restrictions and the debate that surrounds the issue of abortion has changed dramatically throughout the course of history and it continues to change until this very moment. All around the world and in every known society, women have used abortion to control their reproduction, regardless of it’s legality. Abortion used to be exercised freely in the United Sates, up Until all the states started to ban It and place a lot of restrictions on it. They stated that a woman can not abort except in extreme cases in which the mother’s life might be in danger. After the restrictions caused a lot of health issues and raised concerns on women’s health, The Government abolished all the restrictions. In this paper I will analyze and discuss three main positions on the issue of abortion. First, there are those who associate themselves with the title “pro-life”. These individuals are anti abortion, birth control, embryo research or anything that can control or cause any harm to the fetus. Second, there are those who at the other end of the spectrum who firmly believe that if a woman decides to abort, then it is her constitutional right to do so without any interference from the government. Third, are those who believe that if a woman is raped or her life is in danger, then abortion should be completely and solely up to the woman, but other than that, abortion should be illegal. This group of individuals are also for birth control and do not oppose educating

Don Marquis starts off his essay stating that most anti-abortion arguments are often thought of as of “irrational religious dogma or a conclusion generated by seriously confused philosophical argument.” (Marquis, p 183). He goes on to say that his essay will show abortion is seriously immoral and in the same moral category as killing an innocent adult human. Marquis then deconstructs typical arguments made both for and against abortion. He disagrees with the common arguments made by the anti-abortionist because the moral principles they use are often too broad in scope. Marquis draws parallels between the typical anti-abortionist arguments and the standard pro-choice arguments. For example, he notes the anti-abortionist will often make the claim that life is present at conception or the fetus looks like a baby and therefore it is a human being with a right to life. Regarding the pro-choice arguments Marquis notices similar arguments in the other direction. For example, the pro-choicer will claim the fetuses are not persons. Marquis notices there is too much ambiguity in the arguments of both sides. Marquis says that the moral claims made by each party do not do a good job touching the essence of the matter. Marquis then goes on to state that in order to understand why abortion is wrong we must first find out why it is wrong to kill us. He arrives at the conclusion that it is wrong to kill us because it deprives us our future. Marquis argues that since a standard fetus has a future just like a child or an adult

Abortion has been a controversial topic regarding the political, religious, spiritual, and economical views of many Americans throughout history. Understanding the difference between pursuing abortion or rejecting it at the end is an individuals option. Abortion refers to the voluntary termination of a pregnancy, resulting in the death of the fetus or embryo.(CITE) Therefore, throughout the entire life journey of Congress and legal rights, there has been a drift of thoughts towards abortion. It can be represented both parties that advocate for “pro-choice” or “pro-life” and there can be two sides presented with both arguments. After many debates and thoughts on this legal topic, one must consider if it fair and valid to legalize abortion

I want to quickly go over my definitions of “killing”, “murder” and “personal gain”. Killing is the taking of a life either unintentionally, from self-defense, or ~~. Murder is the deliberate, selfish act of taking a life for personal gain. I also want to define of personal gain in the context of murder and abortion, as personal gain can be taken many different ways. Though one could consider acting for personal gain as doing anything that makes one happy or brings

The controversy surrounding the ethicality of abortions has been a hotly debated topic during the past several decades. In the Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade, the Court ruled that women had the constitutional right to seek abortions; however, in 1989, the Court later decided that each state had the right to set its own abortion policy. Heated disagreements and different perspectives have led to the creation of two different movements: the prochoice movement and the prolife movement. The former supports abortion, the intentional ending of a pregnancy, while the latter claims that abortion is immoral. The issue has been escalated from a matter of choice to the questioning of morality – Is having an abortion the killing of a human?

“Abortion is the spontaneous or artificially induced expulsion of an embryo or fetus” (Abortion, 2002). An artificially induced abortion is the type referred to in the legal context. Abortions happen in different situations. The question comes when is it the right or wrong choice. The root question becomes the moment a fetus becomes a person and entitled to rights. The fetus could be a person at conception, during the pregnancy, or at birth. The deciding moment differs from the Pro-life group and Pro-choice group. After critically analyzing four different arguments about the pros and cons of abortion, one will be able to understand the ethical, moral, and

Abortion is a legal medical method to stop the premature delivery that is adopted in most countries of the world. It was legalized many years ago but nowadays we live in the civilized society where the human life is the most precious treasure and the question about the appropriateness of abortions is of current importance. Nowadays there are two opposing camps who present their arguments. People who support abortion insist that prohibition of it will deprive people of their rights to have free choice. On the contrary, people who stand for banning abortion claim that abortion deprive a human being from the right to live. Every person must decide for himself what is more important: deprivation of choice or deprivation of life. Another point

However, the pro-choice or the activists for abortions, argue that if a family is in a state of financial trouble, then abortion should be a practical option. Otherwise, the child would be born into a life of suffering, and inadequate living conditions. The pro-choice believers, bases their beliefs, upon the fact that having an abortion is the inalienable right of women. They believe that by outlawing abortions, women aren’t allowed to practice their freedom of privacy. In a way, women are being denied their constitutional rights. Many pro-choice activists also state that abortion is justifiable, because at the time of fertilization the ensuing embryo is not yet a human being. It is not a human being, but a potential one. Therefore, its death does not constitute a murder. Pro-choice activists’

Abortion is one of the most controversial topics of all times. The definition most people associate with abortion is the termination of unwanted pregnancy. In their essay, “The Wrong of Abortion”, Patrick Lee and Robert P. George argue that intentional abortion is unjust and therefore objectively immoral no matter the circumstances. Also, they argue that “the burden of carrying the baby is significantly less than the harm the baby would suffer by being killed; the mother and father have a special responsibility to the child; it follows that intentional abortion (even in few cases where the baby’s death is an unintended but foreseen side effect) is unjust ” (24).

When faced with the choice of life or death, most people would choose to live. In fact, most would not want someone else making that decision for them. They would claim that as a living and independent entity it is solely their choice as to whether they continue to live or not. While this concept may seem fairly straightforward, there seems to be some great debate when it is applied to abortion. For many, they will maintain that the fetus has the right to life no matter the situation. There are some who will argue that abortion is morally permissible in specific circumstances and there are even those that will claim that abortion is always permissible. Why is there such a great divide? A major factor that plays a part in this is whether abortion involves more than one life. Because determining the beginning point of life is such a complex and emotional debate, there will be the same allowance in this paper as there was in Judith Jarvis Thomson’s “A Defense of Abortion”. As she eloquently put it “I propose then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception” (p. 721). This will allow for a look into the moral debate of abortion from a more grounded stage. As discussed early in Thomson’s paper, most of the debate on abortion rests on whether the fetus is alive or not. Whereas the focus should be on the many other aspects of pregnancies that may lead to a mother wanting an abortion.