Abortion In The American Society Essay Example

comparable to homicide because it entails ending the life of a living, breathing, and moving fetus. Regardless of whether the abortion takes place four months into pregnancy or one month after birth, the result remains unchanged - a life is extinguished. It is an injustice as abortion deprives the child of their potential future. When a person is killed, they not only lose what they presently value but also what they would have cherished in their forthcoming existence.

According to Don Marquis, killing an adult human being is considered seriously wrong because it deprives them of the value of their future. He argues that this loss is what makes killing morally objectionable. Furthermore, Marquis compares abortion to inflicting pain on animals and states that causing suffering is what makes this action wrong. Thus, if abortions cause suffering similar to the termination of a life, then they also fall under the principle that deems them morally wrong. It should be acknowledged that there are different methods to terminate a pregnancy, resulting in loss of life.

There are various methods of abortion that involve using specific tools and techniques. In one method, serrated forceps are utilized to cut the fetus into smaller parts inside the uterus. These pieces are then removed one by one using suction with a vacuum aspirator. Another approach involves delivering the fetus in a feet-first position through the birth canal. A sharp instrument is used to puncture its skull, allowing for the extraction of brain tissue through suction. Interestingly, instead of referring to body parts by their actual names (such as arm or leg), letters are assigned to them as a way to make the

procedure sound less harsh.

The fetal remains, either of a fetus or embryo, are placed in plastic buckets and then disposed of in a dumpster as regular garbage. However, proponents of abortion and other defenders do not consider the method and timing of abortion to be important. Even former abortion practitioners from various backgrounds and religions have had a change in perspective on the act of abortion (killing). Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who performed 60,000 abortions and oversaw 10,000 more, experienced a change of heart when he was presented with scientific evidence and utilized ultrasound technology that convinced him that he was promoting and participating in what he now describes as the most horrific holocaust in U.S. history.

According to Wolf (p56), some doctors refuse to perform legal abortions because they believe their duty is to save lives rather than end them. The debate commonly revolves around whether the rights and values of the woman or the fetus are being disregarded and denied. In order to prioritize women's reproductive rights, pro-choice movements sometimes employ rhetoric that dehumanizes and downplays the death of a fetus (Wolf p54). Some women view an unwanted fetus as a violation of their civil rights, justifying the use of force to expel it (McMillan p.A12). However, it is important to reject this mindset. Once conception occurs and a new life begins, a woman no longer has the authority to determine whether or not to keep or terminate a potential life since she is not God. Both humans and animals lack the right to control quality of life or avoid suffering. Abortion goes beyond preserving life; it also involves how life is generated and how

much human intention can manipulate the process before birth (through contraception) and after birth. By choosing abortion, humanity seeks to limit the power of a higher being and assume control that does not belong to us. Using abortion as an alternative form of birth control holds significant weight. Human beings must take responsibility for protecting themselves against unwanted pregnancies. When they fail in this responsibility, they often feel compelled to kill or dispose of what they perceive as their mistake.

If individuals possess the ability to engage in sexual activity, they also have the capacity to handle the responsibilities that accompany it. Both individuals take time to consider whether or not to engage in sexual intercourse. It is important to recall that this decision was made by God, who intended for sexual intercourse to enable us to reproduce. Since you are not God, you do not have the ability to create a new life only to terminate it due to feeling unprepared. Assuming responsibility for your choices is crucial, even if it requires making sacrifices in order to bring a new life into existence. The worth of life cannot be measured, and the bond between a child and their parents should be strong both prior and subsequent to the child's birth.

Mothers and their children share a special bond that begins at any stage of pregnancy. The mother and fetus or child are intricately connected as one, regardless of the specific phase. The act of giving birth is viewed as a blessing rather than a burden, as women's bodies are intentionally crafted by God for this purpose. However, freedom plays a critical role in the ongoing abortion

debate. Society seems to lack comprehension about the true meaning of freedom. Does freedom simply entail having the ability to make choices without considering the truth or what some perceive as natural law? Should freedom be exercised without taking into account the common good? (Alvare p. 54) Ultimately, individuals possess the freedom to engage in or abstain from sexual activity and also have autonomy in selecting their partners.

It is forbidden to end someone's life and individuals do not have the power to do so. The principles of morality and ethics declare that it is wrong to take another person's life. Every human being, regardless of their social or economic status, ethnicity, or any other factor, has an equal right to live. This belief is acknowledged by the Catholic Church, which affirms that life starts at the embryo stage and lasts until birth (Alvare p.54).

According to Catholics and other religious groups, the worth of a baby is acknowledged throughout their entire life. They believe that aborting an unborn child is a self-centered action that disregards its potential for accomplishments such as promoting world peace, inventing groundbreaking technologies, discovering cures for diseases like AIDS, or ensuring the future existence of humanity.

In contrast, supporters of the Pro-choice movement question the strict position held by the Roman Catholic Church. They promote individual decision-making in circumstances such as rape, where carrying the child would be a constant painful reminder; situations involving risks of birth defects; or when young mothers are not adequately prepared to raise a child.

There are concerns regarding the welfare of children conceived through rape as they may not receive sufficient care and support. This can lead to

a harmful cycle where neglected children grow up depending on hurting others for survival. While I recognize these legitimate concerns, there are alternative choices for mothers in such situations. One possibility is for them to accept responsibility for their actions and decide to give birth to these children rather than opting for termination.

Various programs are accessible to link children with caring families as they grow and develop the ability to raise their own child. In instances of rape where the mother does not desire to keep the baby, there are alternatives available that are preferable to resorting to abortion. There are numerous women who are unable to conceive and would willingly assume the duty of raising these children, regardless of their origins or backgrounds. Warren's essay on personhood offers perceptive insights into its attributes. The process of birth introduces a plethora of diverse elements, rendering it unpredictable what will ultimately emerge.

No justification exists for terminating life regardless of the argument; it is unnecessary. Even if there are individuals willing to care for and provide for the well-being of infants, infanticide remains impermissible (Warren, p.129). Warren presents a compelling analogy on property and ownership, asserting that ownership alone does not grant me the right to kill innocent individuals found on my property. In fact, I can be held accountable if such individuals harm themselves while on my property.

It is equally unclear that I have any moral right to expel an innocent person from my property when I know that doing so will result in his or hers death. (Morality in Practice p.130) To Conclude There are many different excuses people have for having an abortion in

order to cover up their irresponsibility, our human society need to be held accountable for their actions and stop taking the easy way out. No matter how you look at regardless the situation, Terminating is killing and killing is murder no excuse. All the given information shows why abortions are not, morally right and why abortions are just killings, second chances or escape goats. The Ugly Truth, Face It!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bibliography: Alvare,Helen Wilson,Marle, Wolf,Naomi.Abortion:Whose Values?Whose Rights? TikkunJanuary-February 1997:pp.54-60 McMillan,Jeff.Focusign Ona Womans Right to Self Defense The Chronicle of Higher Education.6December 1996p.20 Sterba,JamesP. Morality in Practice Belmont, California: Wadsworth/ThomsonLearning.

2001