Fetal Abnormality

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.

The last step in making a moral decision is simply making the decision. How one arranges the issues and arrives at this decision depends on one's particular set of values and cultural perspectives, but regardless the values and cultural perspectives of the decision maker, the rights and duties remain the same for any situation. One must learn to look for and identify the appropriate deontological factors. Once these factors are identified, one may use his/her own values in order to determine which factors are the most important. By applying these unique values, one is able to develop the final decision.

There are many factors that are taken into consideration when determining if abortion is morally permissible, or wrong including; sentience of the fetus, the fetuses right to life, the difference between adult human beings and fetuses, the autonomy of the pregnant woman, and the legality of abortion. Don Marquis argues that abortion is always morally wrong, excluding cases in which the woman is threatened by pregnancy, or abortion after rape, because fetuses have a valuable future. Mary Anne Warren contends that late term abortions are morally permissible because birth is the most significant event for a fetus, and a woman’s autonomy should never be suspended.

Moral status is a bioethical concept that concerns the type of beings that possess rights, like human beings. There are five distinct viewpoints, or theories, that help in determining moral status. These theories include: a theory based on human properties, a theory based on cognitive properties, a theory based on moral agency, a theory based on sentience, and a theory based on relationships (HLT-302 Introduction 2, 2015). In the case study, a situation in which a fetus develops a rare condition where its quality of life would be poor is presented. The physician (Dr. Wilson), aunt (Maria), mother (Jessica), and father (Marco) all share different viewpoints that make the process of determining a final plan of action very difficult.

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.

When working in a health or social care setting professional practitioners are very often with situations involving moral dilemmas. Therefore it is important for the health, care and social workers to understand morality and the meaning of moral decisions and how they are linked to the practice of heath and social care.

In this essay, the morality of the abortion of a fetus will be discussed in a drama involving a married couple named Deb and Derek (Smolkin, Bourgeois & Findler, 2010). For clarification purposes, we must first define the topic of this discussion; abortion is defined as the act in which a female voluntarily terminates her pregnancy where this act is legally permitted (Warren, 1973). Deb who is 16 weeks pregnant discovers that the fetus she is carrying will most likely be born mentally challenged (Smolkin et al., 2010). As the drama unfolds, the couple ponders the negative impact this child will have on their business, marriage as well as the quality of life that their child will experience if it is carried to term (Smolkin

Before the premises are argued for, the following assumptions must be made. I will follow the same assumptions that Judith Thompson made in her paper. These assumptions are that a fetus is considered a human and that this argument will exclude the extreme circumstances such as rape. Therefore, this paper will focus solely on consensual sex and the morals of abortion following such intercourse, even in the case of dangers to the mothers’ life.

Jessica 's case is one of the mixed worldview of values on her unborn fetus where her moral compass is influenced by her materialism and spirituality akin to Marco. She follows both the theory that only sentient animals have moral status and the theory that all living organisms have moral status (Sebo, n.d.). According to Wilson (1994), “the fetus is entitled to some degree of moral respect, especially after it has developed for a few weeks”. For instance, Jessica is revealed as wavering between selecting what is erroneous and correct. She anticipates an improved socioeconomic life but similarly trusts that every life is consecrated.

Deciding that an abortion is the best course of action accepts defeat in the face of adversity, and succumbs to the power of society’s patriarchal structure. Given that the young woman is only 26 years of age and already beginning a promising career suggests she is intelligent and capable. Moreover, utilitarian theory accounts for the happiness of all individuals. The child of a successful lawyer may have benefit from increased opportunities and a happy childhood. Aborting the fetus would deny this child future happiness. Nonetheless, the most risk-averted application of the utilitarian moral theory justifies the abortion. Given the woman already made a questionable decision engaging in a relationship with an undependable man, it may be in her best interest to abort the

Maria is absolutely opposed to any mention of termination. She views the moral status of the fetus based on Jessica's responsibility as a mother, or the theory of moral agency based on relationships (GCU, 2015). This theory states that a person must not interfere with another person or must respect their rights because they have a relationship with them (GCU, 2015; Jaworska & Tannenbaum, 2013). For example, the relationship between a parent and their child, or in this case their fetus, provides a particularly strong case for a parent not to kill their child or abort their fetus (Jaworska & Tannenbaum, 2013). Aside from the relationship of Jessica and her fetus which may prevent her from terminating, this theory is also applicable in this case to Marco and Jessica, as he is going to support any decision that she makes based on their relationship. It can also be applied to the physician-patient relationship, so Dr. Wilson must respect Jessica's and Marco's rights as parents and their choice because of their relationship.

I agree that it is Mrs. Stedman’s fundamental right and personal choice to keep her baby or abort it. One can also argue that it is her own body and also keeping her pregnancy can affect her partnership with Van Patten, but that is not the only one factor we need to consider. In this case study we also need to look for rights of fetuses too. Fetus is a growing baby and to kill a growing baby is consider murder, because fetus begin berating on its own without mother’s support. On one hand one can claim that Mrs. Stedman’s have rights not to stay pregnant. On other hand unborn baby also have right not to be killed. This can arise a question that which right is fundamental. I think that there is no other right that can the right to life. In this case study we are talking about rights of two people stand in opposition to each other. In reality the law even protect the more fundamental right, which in this case is the right of fetus, and abortion will take away its more fundamental rights of innocent human being.

In our society, there are many ethical dilemmas that we are faced with that are virtually impossible to solve. One of the most difficult and controversial issues that we are faced with is abortion. There are many strong arguments both for and against the right to have an abortion which are so complicated that it becomes impossible to resolve. The complexity of this issue lies in the different aspects of the argument. The essence of a person, rights, and who is entitled to these rights, are a few of the many aspects which are very difficult to define. There are also issues of what circumstances would justify abortion. Because the issue of abortion is virtually impossible to solve, all one can hope

The first ethical issue will be right to life and abortion. Abortion remains controversial and a highly debated subject. The ethical debate concerning abortion is the considerations of a woman’s autonomy and the rights of the woman and the unborn child. The parent/ child relationship and assessing the best interests of potential children also provide considerable scope for ethical discussion. (Jones K, Chaloner C 2007). A factor in the ethical future of abortion is the perception of morality, or of actively ending the life of an unborn human being. This process of deductive reasoning explains the most common anti-abortion argument: First, the fetus is an innocent human being. Second, it is morally wrong to kill an innocent human being and lastly, it is morally wrong to kill a fetus. This reasoning can also be applied to support a viewpoint to those who support abortion. First the fetus has no moral status. Secondly, it is not morally wrong to destroy that which has no moral status. Lastly, it is not morally wrong to destroy a fetus.

“Is abortion moral or immoral?” We yet have not acquired an answer to this question. Infer by that, we defend about the nature and the moral status of the fetus. In the other word, should we or should we not? Don Marquis as well as Bonnie Steinbock embraces with the argument of their own, which point out the morality of abortion.