The Abortion Debate
“I do not believe that just because you’re opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don’t? It is because you don’t want any tax money to go there. That’s not pro-life. That’s pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is.
” Sister Joan Chittister, Catholic Nun.One of the most debated issues in today’s society is abortion; it has generated huge controversies and arguments in the past few years. This issue has been a subject of such controversy because millions of women have been involved in abortion which has resulted in pain, loss and emotional problems. The debates have mainly centered on the need to justify or reject what has been done from the mother’s perspective as well as the view of the loved ones. As a result, any abortion debate is based on an invisible thumb on the scale that cannot be persuaded even with the best logic.The abortion debate has also resulted in the emergence of pro-life and pro-choice movements that support and oppose the practice respectively.
Notably, the central issue of this debate is the right to life for all human beings and the need for the law to protect people from a violent attack that ends their lives (Humble Libertarian 2012). While finding the best solution to this issue is difficult because every individual looks for facts to support their opinion, arguments from women’s rights, science, and the law seem to advance the case of pro-life (Ruse & Schwarzalder, n. . ).
The pro-life case is also advanced by the fact that the classic arguments for pro-choice are constantly collapsing under the weight of science is the notion that no one knows when life begins, particularly in the context of surgical abortion that is the most common type of abortion practiced today. Scientific evidence has established the existence of human life before birth to an extent that there is no dispute in the scientific community regarding this issue. Read about early symptoms of a biological attack may appear the same as common illnessesThe existence of human life is evident at the moment a human sperm enters a human egg in the upper part of the Fallopian Tube, bringing a new entity into existence. The cells formed at conception are given different names since they represent the various early development stages of the human embryo.
The main question here is whether the embryo or fetus is alive, an actual organism or simply a cell, or a human. Scientific evidence has proven that the human embryo is biologically alive because it meets the four criteria required to prove biological life i. . metabolism, response to stimuli, growth, and reproduction (“The Abortion Debate”, 2012).Since conception creates a human being, every human being has the right to live, a right that should be protected by the law. Therefore, the embryo or fetus is a human life that has the right to life because of its distinctive genetic human signature that is different from that of its parents.
Consequently, the human embryo has a right to life and any act to terminate or end its existence should be considered as a violation of this fundamental human life.With regards to the right of the fetus during each month of prenatal period, the fetus’ rights are consistent with the rights of the woman. In this case the fetus has a right to life, right to access nutritional elements, and reproductive rights. The development of the child’s sense should be considered part of the abortion debate because it provides the basis for understanding the rights of the fetus. Based on this analysis, there is significant scientific evidence that shows the existence of human life before birth at the moment of conception.
Therefore, embryo/fetus has the right to life that needs to be protected not only from a moral point of view but also from a legal perspective. The pro-choice movement argues that human life begins at birth are wrong because the fetus only changes location. Moreover, scientific evidence has demonstrated that the embryo has biological life through having the four criteria for establishing biological life, which means the embryo has a right to life. The pro-life case is advanced by the collapse of classic pro-choice arguments and the strong points from scientific evidence, the law, and women’s rights.But in this day and time, there is a much clearer understanding that men and women are moral agents and can make decisions about even the most complex of matters.
We must ensure a woman can determine when and whether or not to have a child according to their own conscience and religious beliefs without the interference of government officials. We must also insure that women can have a healthy, safe pregnancy if that is what they want and that a woman and her family have the resources to care for that child (Veazey, 2010).A former Jesuit priest, Dan Maguire, and now a professor at Marquette University put it this way, “To have a child can be a sacred decision, but to not have a child could also be a sacred choice. The choices revolve around whether a person is old enough for a child or whether a woman already has more children than she can care for. These choices revolve around issues and circumstances; is the person old enough to care for a child or does the woman already have more children than she can care for.
Remembering to that many women choose to have an abortion there is some medical reason such as receiving chemotherapy for cancer or they have a chronic illness and that most later term abortions are because the fetus is abnormal and giving birth would result in a stillbirth or the death of the baby soon after birth(Maguire 2008). These are very difficult moral decisions sometimes even requiring the woman to take a risk of her own life for a pregnancy. That is why I tell people I am not pro-abortion; I am pro-choice (Veazey, 2010).The pro-choice position is based on respect for human life, including future nd existing life, but most pro-choice believers do not believe that life begins at conception; this usually comes from a religious and moral viewpoint. Remember also the Roman Catholic Church views the fertilized egg as a human being, Jewish people believe life begins is the baby’s first breath. That being said, abortion should be rare, but how is that done? We do that by providing sex education classes in schools and religious congregations and by ensuring there is enough information out there about contraceptives and contraception.
Recently the Federal Government made the morning after pill available over the counter to everyone who wants to purchase it no matter the age. It has been proven that abstinence only programs do not work and we should provide young people with the information to protect themselves. Education that stresses abstinence and provides the correct information will reduce the abortion rate. But what about people who believe that life begins at conception and that terminating a pregnancy is murder? For these people it may not be about just respecting or tolerating each other’s viewpoints; these people this is an issue of life or death.
These folks should be told that they have the right to believe as they want to and they should be able to follow whichever choice they want but treat each other with respect and dignity because in the end the government is going to make the decision for everyone. It is selfish to bring a child into this world and not care for them, because in a way the children that are being neglected are really being aborted as well (The Pew Forum, 2010). Being pro-life is not always about whether or not to have a baby and most people do not even think about euthanasia which is the practice of ending the life of a person to limit their suffering.Normally the person would be terminally ill or in a huge amount of pain and no or little quality of life remaining.
The word euthanasia is coined from a Greek work meaning good and thanatoes meaning death. The idea is that instead of condemning someone to a slow, painful, or undignified death, euthanasia would allow the patient to experience a relatively good death (ethics. missouri. edu).
There are many types and combinations of euthanasia and most are morally controversial, and yet some are legal in some countries.Euthanasia is also used in animals when the animal is injured or sick and this type is totally legal and humane to the animal (Center for Health Ethics 2006). People who believe in euthanasia will argue that killing a patient is not any worse than letting them die without help but this writer says then that is playing God and that is not right either. People who believe in euthanasia say that once a person is unconscious with no prospects for recovery, will prevent the need for future needless medical procedures and will prevent suffering.People who oppose euthanasia will tell you that killing is always wrong and that either kind of euthanasia violates the rights of the person involved.
These people also will argue that there may be a “slippery slope” from euthanasia to murder and that legalizing euthanasia will target the poor and disabled as well as create incentives for insurance companies to terminate lives in order to save money (Pro-Con. org 2012). Being a Roman Catholic, the belief is that life is the most basic gift of a loving God-a gift over which we have stewardship but not absolute dominion.The tradition, that declares it a moral obligation to care for our own life and health and to seek such care for others, recognizes that we are morally obligated to use all available medical procedures in every set of circumstances.
But that tradition affirms that as a responsible Catholic one must never intend to cause one’s own death or the death of an innocent person by action or omission. The Catholic Church calls on all persons of good will to reject proposals to legalize euthanasia and abortion (USCCB 1991).Earlier this year, the nation observed the anniversary of the most famous abortion decision to this day Roe v. Wade, of all the things that will be said about this court case in the time ahead, one thing remains beyond dispute: Abortion is the issue that will not go away. Most Americans consider abortion to be morally wrong and a large majority of those want significant restrictions on its availability and as long as this is the case the case of Roe v.
Wade will not be settled. Another reason too is the fundamental ruling was made on a falsehood saying we cannot tell when the life of a human begins.Today we know without a doubt that a child in the womb is precisely that a child! Yet there is a third reason: No legal system can be truly committed to human rights if it supports the principle that is acceptable to intentionally kill the innocent. The illusion regarding abortion is that it can be treated in political terms. Because abortion is a moral question we should expect it to be resolved in accordance with philosophical and ethical principles. In the 19th century, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels argued that the traditional family structure oppressed women.
The only way women could gain equality was to be “liberated” from the responsibilities of motherhood and family and by finding employment outside the home. Within the Christian tradition we understand that in regard to the transmission of human life we are called to cooperate with our Creator and that no person is entitled to claim absolute control over another human life already called into existence. The life of every human being is first and foremost a gift of the Creator. We are to be faithful, steadfast and come to the aid of those who cannot defend themselves and to remain on the field till the battle is done (Anderson 2013).