Abortion is also harmful to the woman whether it because of a backstreet abortion or because of the psychological trauma that the woman goes through after having had an abortion.
Abortions are very damaging to the psyche, as the lack of information and rush of an abortion can have an effect on a woman. They can also be very damaging to the woman’s health, if done not properly there is a chance that a woman may not be able to conceive again and if done properly the results can be devastating emotionally.
With all the concern about backstreet abortions harming women, it is important to note that legal abortions are not as safe as many believe. Many women who have legal abortions have complications needing further treatment in hospital, many more go to the doctor for physical or psychiatric help, and the increased risk of suicide after abortion compared with giving birth means that more, not fewer, women die. Even the legalisation of abortion had no significant impact on the maternal death rate. This applies to other countries in the developed world, regardless of when they made abortion easier (or even in four cases harder) to obtain. It was better medicine, particularly the use of antibiotics that brought down the maternal death rate. In contrast, legalising abortion has certainly resulted in countless deaths of unborn children who would not otherwise have died. If direct abortion is the taking of an innocent human life, should we really respond by making it easier and safer to obtain?
Now if we look at pro choice views towards abortion we can see that they treat a woman’s freedom and rights above all, including the ability to have safe and a satisfying sex life. Pro choice is all about reproductive rights and health where a women has the right to decide if, when and how often to bear children. Abortion isn’t the only part of the pro choice movement it simply the fact that women must have access to safe, effective and affordable access to reproductive health services and information, as well as health care coverage.
Feminism is derived from the historical experience of female suppression, it’s still going on today as a woman’s place is said to be at home with the children. Not only are women suppressed like this but they are suppressed with egotistical ideals but they are suppressed with motherhood. Not every woman has the desire of becoming a mother, women are moving up in the world they are now being seen as equal, women are regaining status as they are taking executive jobs and becoming top scientists but some people do not realise that sex is not only for reproduction it can be for pleasure a woman doesn’t always have the time or even feel the need for putting her life on hold for say eighteen years while her child grows up, she should be out there realising and living up to her full potential, making the world a better place even for other peoples children or even hers when she feels that she is ready or able. Abortion should be allowed as women need freedom and cannot be held down by these restraints any longer.
We should also learn from past and other peoples mistakes as bad things have happened in the past when a woman is forced to have a child not only does it wreak havoc on a family, not only emotionally but it also causes economic stress on families because of the cost of children and how to pay for the child as the woman can no longer work, etc.
We have also seen that when abortion isn’t legalised it can have detrimental affects, such as backstreet abortions taking place. At least with legalisation woman are getting the care that is needed, unsafe abortions kill two hundred thousand women every year. If women cannot even have somewhere safe to go it could mean that a woman’s life has been taken away as well as her work and/or education has been taken from her and isn’t this an infringement on human rights?
Ethical theories can also help us with moral decisions such as abortion. One of the more recent theories, situation ethics which was designed and written by Joseph Fletcher is situation ethics. This ethical theory is mainly interested in the service of agape love; this is the purest and most unconditional love. Situation ethics is a teleological theory which means that it maintains the rightness and wrongness of an action by its consequences as opposed to a deontological theory which is interested with the nature of the acts itself, whether the acts are right and wrong within themselves . In teleological ethics there are no actions which are innately right or wrong it is all about what sort of consequences occur because of the action. For example, abortion is considered wrong morally, but in a situation where abortion would give the most loving effect then to a follower of situation ethics terminating the foetus would in turn be the right thing to do.
Situation ethics can be compared to the Methodist Churches approach to moral decision making. The Methodist Church leaves much of the decision to the people involved, and considers each situation to be different, they do not really have a general rule as to whether abortion is acceptable or not, they tend to look at the situation. Just like situation ethics considers each situation to be different and separate, and the judgment is made from within the situation subjectively. This fact is a key criticism of situation ethics, because the decision is made from within the situation then there can never be a clear and objective view, and personal preferences and prejudices can also play a huge part in the outcome of the decision.
Teleologically abortion can also be seen as the right thing to do as it determines the moral value of actions. From a consequential viewpoint abortion can be justified as it is morally essential to women’s well being, therefore morally essential to society as a whole.
Now if we look at a religious viewpoint we can see that religion is generally against abortion as they believe that abortion in its simplest form is just murder, it’s the taking of an innocents life. Different religions have slightly different views. For example Islam states that under no circumstances should abortion be allowed but with Christianity it could be interpreted that abortion is allowed but before the foetus has a soul.
If we look closer at Christianity we already know that they have mainly the same belief system where they both generally believe in the sanctity of life, sanctity means 'the quality of being sacred or holy.' So the sanctity of life must mean that every human life is sacred so the this means that every human life and every potential human life is scared and cannot be taken lightly therefore all killing is wrong Christians often talk of human life as being sacred, they refer to the sanctity of life not only when talking about abortion but when considering issues such as abortion, euthanasia, embryo research, the care of disabled or the elderly. They believe there is something special or holy about human life. Every human, Christians believe, is special to God.
In God is described as creating the first humans. The Bible says, ' So God created people in his own image; God patterned them after himself; male and female he created them.'
As we know god did not only create the Humans we are part of the whole universe but we they do believe that they are the only part of God's creation described as being in the image of God. Christians don't believe we look like God. They believe being in the image of God means that we are somehow special, we have something of God's nature in us, or at least the capacity to show God's nature.
Christians believe that God created every human to be unique. There is a passage in the
where it describes a very caring God intimately creating us in our mother's womb: 'You made all the delicate, inner parts of my body and knit me together in my mother's womb. Thank you for making me so wonderfully complex! Your workmanship is marvellous - and how well I know it. You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion, as I was woven together in the dark of the womb. ... Every moment was laid out before a single day had passed.'
Christians believe all human life is sacred because there is a time for everything, a time to live and a time to die and that god created life therefore it should be preserved as nothing is more important that what god has given.
T). There is also the belief that every life has a purpose, God destined (or meant) for each of us to be born (). He took care when creating us. All life is important and shouldn't be wasted.
The belief that Christians have in the sanctity of life often leads Christians to oppose euthanasia. They believe to deliberately end a life, even one of a terminally ill patient, is destroying a life God has made. Abortion, equally, many Christians see as destroying something God is making inside the mother. The belief in the sanctity of life makes it hard for a Christian to control the beginning or end of life. That, Christians believe is the responsibility of God.
There are three main branches of Christianity, Protestant, Methodist and Roman Catholic. Both of these may have the same general view on abortion where it’s wrong and they both may believe in the sanctity of life but they both still have slightly different views on abortion.
If we look closer at the Roman Catholic view on abortion we can generally know that religion doesn’t accept abortion as it is simply murder. The Catholic Church teaches that ensoulment takes place at the moment of conception and this has been a key reason for their refusal to condone abortion (although Thomas Aquinas taught that the soul of girls was implanted by God at 90 days and the soul of boys at 40 days and Saint Augustine taught that it is implanted between four and six days) another key factor is which Catholics believe shows that the natural consequence of the woman becoming pregnant is to give birth so if a woman chooses to go against this she is going against the will of god.
Could we justify an abortion before ensoulment? I do not think that we can as the Roman Catholic Church argues that the human soul is implanted at the moment of conception therefore no abortion can be justified is plainly and simply murder.
“By the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his successors, and in communion with the bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral.” (Papal Encyclical 1995)
There are for main principles that the Roman Catholic Church abides by on with the matter of abortion and they are that; first of all that god is the lord of all life and death and we do not have a choice in the matter as only god can decide who’s time is it to go it is not up to a human to have mastery over another. They also believe that as it is written in the 10 commandments that thou should not kill as God decides when life begins and ends. Murder is forbidden in the 10 Commandments.
(). It is not acceptable to take away a life God has created ... It isn't acceptable to kill someone else and taking your own life is not considered a good thing. As we do not have choice over who should and who shouldn’t die. They also believe that human life begins at conception and that abortion at any stage if the unjust taking of a human life.
Although Catholics refuse to accept abortion as an acceptable solution to 'unwanted' pregnancies they do accept that there might be time when an abortion occurs as a result of trying to deal with another medical issue. For example, if the mother needed a life-saving operation which could potentially terminate the pregnancy the Catholic Church would allow this under the ‘doctrine of double effect’. This is because your first intention is the save the life of the mother rather than terminate the pregnancy, an example of this is when a foetus is lost due to a cancerous womb.
Now if we look at the protestant views we can see that they mainly have the same views on abortion as the Roman Catholic Church as they believe that a foetus is a human being form the moment of conception as a foetus is considered a potential life. They also believe that conception is an act of god. They generally believe that all human life is sacred but there are times when it is accepted.
They Church of England agrees that time and energy is an acceptable solution to abortion especially there is such a debate because of the claims of the mother and the unspoken claims of the foetus and the amount of abortions is becoming a serious issue.
Some Protestants believe that accept that in life threatening situations abortion can be justified and others say that social, emotional and economic reasons can also justify an abortion some are described as Christian fascists as they do not agree with any abortions.
Also if we look at the Methodist views towards abortion we can see that this is the most compassionate church when it comes to abortion, it is similar to the Church of England as it does not condone abortion nor does it believe that its should be encouraged or even support it in certain situations. For example if the baby were to be born severely handicapped, thus bring in the quality of life which the Roman Catholic Church never did. Or if giving birth to the child will danger the mother, then it is acceptable to kill to save another live, it could be argued that this is placing one life above another. Also if the mothers social conditions do not allow her to have a baby, if the birth of this child may endanger the quality of life for another child which again places one life above another. This begs the question of viability. What makes a human? Should the baby be counted as a human after a certain amount of time into the pregnancy?
If we now take a look at the philosophers views on abortion we can see that they generally seem to be more pro choice, if we take Peter Singer for example he argues that the sanctity of life argument doesn’t represent what people do or think it is just there in the end sanctity of life believers only make the argument worthwhile by using quality of life arguments. They argue that if someone’s life is so miserable that the kindest thing you could do to them is let them die, so whenever sanctity of life believers try to use acts or omissions against us they are trying to, by philosophical slight of hand are trying to work us round an impossible doctrine.
He also argues that sanctity of life believers are spiciest as only human life is worthwhile as if the sanctity of life argument was to be applied generally there would be no grounds for killing animals for food or experiments. He also says that person hood shouldn’t always be associated with being human as chimpanzees show signs of this, so are they human?
If we look at Mary Anne Warren she argues that its birth rather than earlier signs of life that show personhood is when you should consider a foetus to be a human not any time before as if we go by the definition that any living tissue is a person, does that mean sperm and eggs are living people too, are women committing murder when they go through there menstruation cycle? The same applies for men every time the sperm fails to penetrate a woman’s egg?
Judis Jarvis Thompson argues that a foetus isn’t a human as a fertilised egg isn’t a person because it is too different to what we normally recognise as a person, she accepts that there is a growth but she argues that there is a point where it isn’t a human just as an acorn isn’t an oak tree, glover says that if we call a foetus a person it stretches normal terms.
She also argues that abortion is a defensive measure as self defence for mother as a child could not only harm the mother physically but emotionally and economically, as a child could bring about the end of a relationship and even a career or education.
There is an imaginary case by Judis Jarvis Thompson called ‘a defence of abortion’ in which she argues the woman’s case even though the foetus is considered a person. Within the case she asks you to imagine that you’re in bed with a violinist and he has a rare blood type and a fatal kidney aliment, and you are the only matching blood type. As the violinist is such a valuable asset to the musical world the musical association kidnap you and ‘plug’ you into him. The doctors say that they never knew it would happen this way but now if we unplug you it would kill him but not to worry we can safely unplug you both after 9 months.
This case raises many moral issues, what rights does the violinist have over your body? Do you have any duty to the violinist? How could you justify unplugging yourself? Do the conclusions above suggest women have a right to terminate a wanted and unwanted pregnancy?
In conclusion we can see that there will always be differing moral views towards abortion as views are forever changing. The role of women in the modern world is also changing so where can we know draw the line with abortion in ancient times when religion came about it was forbidden but over time it has seen to become acceptable to the stage where an abortion can be had up to when a woman is twenty four weeks pregnant even though children are being born and surviving before this cut off date. So where do we stop? Where can we draw the line with abortion? And how far down the slippery slope can we fall before we even realise it. At the moment abortion has to permitted by two doctors eventually people will decide that this is now unnecessary, how long will it take for this to become one doctors consent. Or even none, how long will it take for walk in clinics to be established?