Abortion Is Immoral
Thefact that abortion, with minor exclusions, is earnestly immoral lacksthe immense support it deserves from most philosophical works of therecent times. Shockingly, many shrewd philosophers in connection withsecular schools of higher learning conclude that the anti-abortionstand is generally a result of misguided philosophical arguments.Others consider the anti-abortion stand as a mere sign of irrationalreligion doctrines. Therefore, the main purpose of this paper is toprepare an argumentative essay on the fact that abortion, excludingsome rare scenarios, is seriously immoral. This paper will establishon the wrongness of abortion which is equated to killing a humanbeing.
Iwill start by stating the reason why I do not consider ‘all’abortion as being immoral. I included exceptions in my discussion tominimize on certain scenarios whose ethical analysis appeared as adetailed and controversial matter for sound-minded opponents ofabortion. For instance, abortion within the first 14 days ofconception before the cells grown into a human embryo, or abortionafter rape. Moreover, I included some exceptions of instances whereabortion is permissible for example, abortion if a fetus isanencephalic or when the continuation of the pregnancy poses lifethreats to the pregnant woman. Therefore, whenever I condemn abortionin this paper, the reader should put in mind this exceptional cases.
WhatI mean by the term ‘abortion’ is any deed done by or on apregnant woman and is aimed at ending the life of a fetus or embryo,so as to favor the woman’s other needs. On the other hand, a fetusrefers to a growing human being inside a woman’s uterus fromconception to birth. There exist several symmetries that arisefollowing the major opinions on either side of the abortion argument,which clearly explains why the debate on this social problem hasremained intractable. My main anti-abortion premise is that a fetusis both alive and human. All human beings have the right to life bylaw hence, fetuses have a definite right to life too. It is truethat each and every female being have the right to control their ownbody although, the right to an individual’s life overpowers awoman’s right to control their own body thus, abortion is immoral.
DoesA Fetus Have the Right to Life?
Thisis a very important question for this discussion as it will helpdetermine whether all abortion can be morally permissible. The answerto this question is fully dependent on whether a person supports oropposes abortion. As for the opponents of abortion, we will look allover for the most inclusive definition of what life is, and make surethe explanation is inclusive of a fetus. On the contrary, supporterswho claim that abortion is morally acceptable will strive to get aplausible and narrow definition of a human being’s right to lifeand make sure that a fetus is not included in the explanation.
Opponentsof abortion, myself included, believe that every human beingregardless of their age, religion, gender, or race have an equalright to life. So, since the fetuses under scrutiny belong to thehuman species, they should be regarded to as human beings. For thisreason, the syllogism clearly indicates that a growing fetus has theright to life, which is seemingly deductive. However, on thecontrary, supporters of abortion claim that fetuses do not possessany communication capacities in complex manners and are also notrational, which is a basic concept that defines a person. Thus, theydeduce from this that no fetus is human. This argument is neithersound nor is it cogent. They go further by claiming that since nofetus has a right to life, it is, therefore, a female’s right togovern her own self and body and do with it as she pleases,generating a forced right to the social problem.
Thismajor controversy puts an individual on crossroads regarding whichsyllogism they should choose. Generally, the anti-abortion syllogismis usually on the receiving end as it faces numerous critiques on itscore premise that is, the argument that anything that isbio-humanoid has the right to life. This fact has a questionablescope as the class of things which are bio-humanoid is too broad forinstance, it includes human cancer cells which are deprived of theirright to life but are biologically humanoid in nature. However, Iregard this a vague counter-argument pitched for the purpose ofnothing more than a debate. As for the case of those supportingabortion, their syllogism is prone to critiques on its premise thatis, only persons of the human species have a right to life. Similarto the anti-abortion syllogism, this premise is also subject to theproblem of a broad and extensive scope. For instance, the word‘person’ used cannot be used to refer to a mentally ill,retarded, or an infant, as they do not belong to in the samecategory. Despite the differences between the two sides, they bothagree on one similar issue that killing an individual is a wrongfulcrime. It is true that the human embryo killed in an abortion is acause of a person’s premature death which is misfortune. This isimmoral as it deprives a person their value and right to a future.
Objectionand Response to Objection
Supportersof abortion strongly denounce the major premise of anti-abortioniststhat fetuses and human embryos have a right to life and choose todifferentiate the right to life from the right to use anotherperson’s body so as to stay alive. They argue that the right tolife solemnly belongs to the woman carrying the child, while thefetus only depends on the woman for its existence. This begs thequestion, do this perspective develop a right to abortion? By thisargument, abortion supporters seek to direct our thoughts to the ideathat a fetus uses the body of a woman as a life support machine,while the woman does not use the human embryo or fetus to gainanything in return. However, as an anti-abortion citizen, it is keyto note that in any abortion, it is the child’s life which is lost,and not the woman who carried the child. The argument by abortionsupporters that the right to life of a fetus does not entail it usinganother person’s life to survive is not sound. This is so because awoman’s right to control her body is no justification for her toend another individual’s life through abortion.
Inresponse, my stand firmly remains that it is wrong and immoral for apregnant woman to end or take away a fetus’s right to life for ownpersonal gains. The right of a pregnant woman to control her own bodyshould not include any practice that could lead to the harm or deathof her unborn fetus. The conflict between a woman’s rights tocontrol her own body, versus a fetal right to life should be settledonce and for all. It is true that the right to life is way moreimportant than the right to controlling an individual’s own body Ithe issue regarding abortion as the loss of an individual’s life ismuch greater as compared to the loss of your body’s control foronly 9 months.
Thispaper is an argumentative essay on the notion that, excluding certainrare cases, abortion is immoral. Abortion practices are quitedetrimental as they deprive an individual of their rightful value andfuture, which should not be under the control of a woman. Hence,abortion is immoral as it is an action that sees the death of a humanembryo which indeed is the humanoid species, thus, a human being. Ihave based my argument the wrongness and immorality that areassociated with killings due to abortion that results in prematuredeaths. Moreover, this argument was biased towards promoting ethicalinsights about the social problem of abortion. Through my discussion,it is clear that the burden of carrying a child for nine months,despite its vividness, is much lesser as compared to the burden onthe woman’s conscience, and the harm suffered by the fetus.Therefore, I can strongly conclude that planned abortion is unjustand factually immoral.
No related posts.