And if a heartbeat defines life, then abortion should definitely be outlawed. Moreover, have we ever thought about what pain the fetus feels? Isn’t it unfair to a little fetus to experience pain because of irresponsible parents? And the mother’s health risks isn’t a debate we should dig in, it is the mother’s responsibility and choice
However another point of view could be taken. If you asked a pregnant woman whether she could will that other women could have an abortion and she replied with “yes”, then it would be okay for her to have an abortion. If “no” then it would be immoral for her to have an abortion. As one can clearly see, the two deontological/Kantian theories have a big grey area. Using Kantian theory, someone who regards abortion as immoral, therefore cannot morally kill in self-defence, according to
Although they both share the same viewpoint on how individuals should not use prenatal testing, Greely writes a more persuading and convincing argument due to fewer fallacies. Bonnie Steinbock, a professor of health policy and philosophy at the University at Albany, believes that prenatal testing for potential genetic disorders cannot be justified. She argues that it is almost impossible to determine future life quality with medical advances. In the article, “Prenatal testing for adult-onset conditions is not beneficial” (2009), she claims that prenatal testing is “dubious.” How can a test be helpful for signs of cancer, or diabetes, yet be dubious? This may be confusing to readers since she gives a vague example, and does not have any evidence to back up her claims.
Knowing that a fetus is a potential human being, it should have a right to live in this world. We have no right to take or condemn one’s life and we see abortion as taking one’s privilege to live. Another is that when women have sexual intercourse it is her choice and must take full responsibility of the result. Pregnancy is not just a game where you can undo what you did wrong. Taking responsibility of the result is a wise response to the problem, if you consider it as a problem not a blessing.
Pro-Choice feels that the women’s civil rights are being violated by not having the choice to decide for themselves. Pro-Life side, one that feels that every life is a miracle and deserves the chance to live. This side stays on the course that all lives matter and deserve the chance to live. Pro-Life argues that taking the life of another is not accepted in any society, they argue the side effects of abortions, and they argue that adoption is an alternative to abortion as
It therefore censures the terms like suicide, euthanasia, murder and abortion. According to moral right, as the patient and the doctor agree, it should be carry out, without considering the negative impact on the relative and this is not right. Consequentialist however, do seem to focused not only on the patients but the relative. But doe the consequence of euthanasia good to legalized it? This is the question that concern the
The issue of abortion is an ongoing debate in the U.S, that involves a variety of moral, social, and legal issues. The ethics surrounding the procedure are frequently disputed and people often question whether abortion should remain a legal option for terminating pregnancies. Proponents of abortion, favor unrestricted access and contend that it’s a woman’s right to choose what she does with her body. On the other hand, opponents seek to ban the practice and argue that deliberately ending an unborn child’s life is morally wrong. While abortion provides essential medical and social benefits to women, it also deprives an innocent child of the right to life.
One major point of controversy within the United States presently concerns whether or not a woman has the right to abort her fetus if need be. The debate consists of two sides: the “pro-choice” movement (which claims that a woman has ultimate autonomy over her own body) and the “pro-life” movement (which believes that abortion is unethical and akin to homicide). As a liberal who firmly stands behind the “pro-choice” agenda, I am often guilty of concluding that all anti-abortionists are all overzealous fundamentalist Christians who blatantly disregard the notion of freedom of choice to support “irrational religious dogma” (223). However, in the essay “Why Abortion is Immoral,” philosopher Don Marquis attempts to remove this negative stigma
The ethical principle that would apply to my ethical problem is privacy and confidentiality. Privacy belongs to each person and, as such, it cannot be taken away from that person unless he/she wishes to share it. Confidentiality, on the other hand, means that the information shared with other persons will not be spread abroad and will be used only for the purposes intended (Silva and Ludwick, 1999). In many hospitals especially The Virgin Islands hospitals, this ethical code has been broken many times. As nurses we are supposed to protect our patients but, in this community, we fail to do so.