Assignment on the abortion controversial

For a long time now, abortion has been a controversial topic. In general, abortion is concerned with deliberately ending pregnancy. This accounts to eliminating a foetus directly or by a miscarriage. There is no part in the abortion debate that considers it a good thing. Nobody wants to see the number of abortions rising. Hence, considering the supporters of women’s rights to choose “pro-abortion” is not accurate. In fact, it is misguided.

Considering the fact that all want to see the number of abortions decrease, an interesting issue is how it can be achieved. It is important to note that 61 percent of abortions take place before 9 weeks while 80 percent take place before 10 weeks (West, 2008).

Following are some religious considerations:

When it comes to Bible, there is a scholarly consensus that it does not have any injunction against abortion. Therefore, both those who exclaim on biblical ground that abortion is prohibited and those who exclaim that it is permitted, they have to infer their belief and conclusion. It is important to note that in Bible, there is nothing about foetuses and babies younger than a month.

Meanwhile, in terms of Judaism, foetus is not considered a full human being. Therefore, killing it is not recognised as a murder. At present, despite the differences and confusions in Jewish Law, abortion is allowed to save the health and life of a woman. In fact, there is no consensus where it is permissible in the very first trimester for avoiding giving birth to a malformed baby, or in case of incest or rape.

Historically, in Christianity, abortion in pregnancy is considered sinful but it is not considered a murder. It is important to note that much of the debate has been concerned with hominization when the foetus is ensouled. This is tied to embryology and the main view is that early abortion is permissible.

An argument for abortion comes to mind that foetus is a human being, and innocent at that. Killing a human being is wrong as he or she has the right to life. In this manner, abortion is wrong and even immoral. The problem with this argument is that it does not distinguish between being a person and being genetically human. It is a person who has the right to life. Since they are people, killing humans is very wrong. It is an open question whether foetus is even a person or not (Pollitt, 2014).

When is a being a human or a person? It is quite clear that one who acts on the basis of one’s beliefs and is self-conscious qualifies as a human and as a person. It is quite obvious that every normal adult human qualifies as a human and as a person under these specific standards and criteria. There are five sufficient and necessary conditions that are embedded in the notion of personhood including:

Being able to feel pleasure and pain, being able to experience emotions, being capable of knowing and reasoning, being conscious of himself/herself, and lastly, being conscious or aware of his surroundings.

Let’s suppose that there are two individuals, a woman and a foetus, an actual person and a potential person. If rights seem to accrue to one in the virtue of personhood of one, the woman’s rights have precedence. Actually, there are three basic rights on which abortion’s right is based:

Rights over Body: There are various ways of considering and presenting this point. The key or main issue that property rights are less significant than the right to life. It is just that murder cannot be justified by property rights.

Right to Self-Defence: When it comes to intentional killing of an individual, it seems justifiable when it involves self-defence, severe beating, rape, or maiming. The same thing can be said about pregnancy when it can harm the woman. It applies in cases such as difficult pregnancy, too many children, and rape. The problem, in this case, exists that self-defence involves killing and eliminating an aggressor. However, foetus is certainly not an aggressor. Therefore, it would not be wrong to say that the right to self-defence allows abortion only if the life of woman is at significant and substantial risk. Meanwhile, abortion for having a happy life or for improving welfare is not seemingly justified because it is not possible for a person to kill an innocent human being for being happy.

Right to Bodily Autonomy: In cases of undesired and unwanted pregnancy, although it would not be morally obligatory, it would be supererogatory to bring foetus to term. For instance, in case of plugged-in-violinist of Thomson, it would be considered supererogatory to be plugged. Actually, there is a disanalogy case between the violinist case and abortion: the women by being involved in voluntary intercourse and would be responsible for the developed foetus. This responsibility towards the foetus will be proportional to the voluntariness’s degree. At most, this right of bodily autonomy provides only a specific authority or limited right over abortion.

So, what is right? Is abortion right or is it wrong? Actually, at the moment, there are many ambiguities in this notion and there is a lack of clarification on the basis of which a sound conclusion can be made. For instance, it is yet to be determined whether a foetus accounts for a human being or not. If yes, then it would be made easier to determine if abortion accounts to killing a human being or not. However, even so, there are still many complications that need to be cleared before a sound decision can be made (Wenz, 2010).

On the basis of existing information and evidence, it can be said that:

Abortion is right if the woman is experiencing some life-threatening difficulties. For instance, if there is a case in which either a woman or a foetus can be saved, abortion is feasible and it can be performed. In such a manner, it would not be wrong or considered immoral.

Abortion is right in case of rape. It is possible that a woman might be subjected to rape and foetus might develop from it. In such a case, the woman certainly has the right of determining whether she needs abortion or not. If she decides to have abortion, it would not be considered immoral or even a murder. A child resulting from a rape would be significantly detrimental to the mental health of woman. Therefore, abortion in such a case is certainly not immoral.

Abortion is not wrong if it is performed due to genetic complications. For instance, there are cases when babies do not have chances of living for a long period of time. In such cases, if a woman determines to abort then it is not wrong (Saxton, 2006).

Meanwhile, abortion is wrong if it is being performed for no significant reason, and for personal convenience. For instance, there are cases in which intercourse is voluntary but the woman does not desire a child. In such a case, abortion is immoral and it is also wrong.

Abortion is wrong if the woman desires it to ensure that she does not experience any financial pressure. For instance, there are cases when abortions are made just to ensure that general livelihood does not deteriorate. In such a situation when the intercourse is voluntary, abortion is wrong.

In a nutshell, abortion is wrong. It should not be performed with the only exception of rape cases and life-threatening situations to both the woman and the foetus. Both religion and ethics provide evidence that abortion results in the killing of foetus, which is not something that humans have the right to do. Even though there are still some ambiguities about abortion, the current evidence and data available indicates and affirms that abortion is something that should not be performed. Even in the case of life-threatening situations, abortion should be considered only the final stance.

References of abortion has been a controversial topic

Pollitt, K. (2014). Pro: Reclaiming abortion rights. Picador.

Saxton, M. (2006). Disability rights and selective abortion. The disability studies reader, 4, 87-99.

Wenz, P. (2010). Abortion rights as religious freedom. Temple University Press.

West, R. (2008). From choice to reproductive justice: de-constitutionalizing abortion rights. Yale LJ, 118.