Biomedical Ethics of Abortion
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Name, Course Code
Professor
Date
Introduction
Abortion is the intentional ending of a pregnancy. Abortion ethics have been debated since the inception of bioethics in the 1960s. There are two sides when it comes to such debates, and one side supports abortion while the other is strongly and religiously against it. In either way, arguments concerning abortion can never be won as both sides are always right. The ethics of abortion on one side holds that every human has a right to life, and thus, life should not be ended deliberately. On the contrary, those in support of abortion argue that women have a right to choose, and can choose what happens to their bodies, including a pregnancy that dwells in their bodies (David, 2016). The contradiction also is evident in the biomedical sector and seems like a conclusion will never arise.
Body
Those arguing for abortions have it that women have a right to choose what happens to their bodies. Therefore, a pregnant woman can decide to end a pregnancy as they wish, as the body belongs to the woman. The fetus dwells in a woman’s body, and therefore, the woman can decide what happens and what does not happen to it. The woman also has a right to decide if the fetus remains on her body or it should be removed. Just like any other human being, the woman has a right to claim ownership of their bodies (Furedi, 2016). In that case, the right to abort is granted to the woman. For example, as Thomson puts it, everyone has the right to disconnect himself or herself from a violinist who is connected to them in their sleep. Thomson gives an imaginative example of a case where one is connected to a violinist through the bloodstream, whose life entirely depends on the connection. He adds that staying on the bed for an unknown period to keep the violinist alive is way too much what morality can demand. There is, therefore, a distinction between the right to choice and the right to life.
The right to abortion is also one way of women achieving equality with men, and denying a woman the right to abort means that they should give birth to the child and take care of it as the society expects her to do for many years. On the other hand, men cannot get pregnant, and such an obligation of taking care of a baby lies heavily on women. Therefore, women should be allowed to take full control of their bodies and decide when and how to be mothers (Hwang, Yoo & Cho, 2016). Therefore, for equality, abortion should be legal.
Every human being has a right to life right from the time of inception. Every human, regardless of gender, race, and age, has a right to life. The pro-life arguments are based on the fact that embryo-fetus is a person from the first day of conception. However, the ambiguity in the definition of a person gives some loopholes o question whether the unborn are people. According to one definition, a person is a creature that possesses the ability to plan his/her actions, has self-consciousness, memory, and language. With such a definition, the fetus does not fall under those eligible for the right to life. Also, those children with defects fall out of the definition as well as children below the age of five. Also, a ball of cells cannot be characterized as a person, not even when it has human DNA (Svenaeus, 2018). Thus, a more reasonable argument would refer to a fetus as a potential human being. Therefore, such a description would give it the right to life. Therefore abortion is wrong as it violates the right to life of a potential human. Arguing that everyone has a right to choose would be wrong in this case as the body lost during the process is the body of the fetus ad, not the woman. Therefore, the fetus has the right to life and their body as well.
A lot of rights conflict when it comes to the issue of whether or not to support abortion. The right to live in whichever case never includes the right to use another human’s body to support another life. At the same time, if one argues that a woman has a right to her own body, she still has no right to end another life even if it is in her. It is, therefore, right to life, and the choice is limited when it comes to matters of abortion. As much as the woman has a right to choose what happens and does not happen in their bodies, they are not granted the right to end life. It is a matter of a clashing of rights between the mother’s life to choice and a fetus’s right to life. In most cases, the right to life overrides the right to choose, especially in states with anti-abortion laws (Abu-Baker & Mrayyan, 2019). With such an argument, a right to abortion bill will never pass.
There are also medical views concerning abortion. All physicians are obliged to accord respect to human life after inception. However, the interest of the mother and the interest of the unborn child sometimes conflict, putting physicians and anyone in the medical field at a dilemma. It is also not within the powers of a physician to decide on the rules and attitudes of a state regarding such matters. However, they have the power to assure protection to their patients as well as defend their rights in the community. If a physician has a belief or a conviction that abortion is wrong, they have a right to step aside, leaving the patient with another doctor, qualified to offer the required medical care (Kenney, 2019).
There is also a deontological perspective of abortion in the medical field. A physician is prohibited from killing either by inaction or action. It is the same laws that are used to argue the position of a medical practitioner in matters of euthanasia. Artificial abortion is, therefore, considered a serious deontological and ethical error. Therefore, in cases where the fetus needs medical attention, the mother is ethically required to accept treatment meant to save a fetus. However, the mother’s obligation is limited to accounts where no inconveniences and pain is involved. Also, the treatment must give reasonable hope and benefit to the mother. Therefore, a medical intervention offered during pregnancy must serve the best interest of both the mother and the unborn child (Kenney, 2019). In cases where the mother’s interest is not served, such as her life is endangered, abortion becomes legal.
There are arguments also surrounding the case of an unwanted child. In most cases, a patient is raped and gets pregnant. With such a pregnancy, the woman’s self-esteem is at stake, and the woman also has a right to autonomy. In that case, the woman is obliged to decide the life of the fetus she is carrying. Such a pregnancy would violate the right to a happy life. Paul Ricoeur defines a happy life as the need for a fulfilled, happy life for oneself and others (David, 2016). There is a possibility of the unborn baby living a fulfilled life and becoming a great person such as a famous musician, an athlete, a doctor, or even an engineer. Aborting such a child would be denying them the right to live a fulfilled life of happiness to the child. The mother and the medical practitioner in such a case need to uphold morals such as respect, kindness, recognition for others, and compassion. However, the physician also has to act as a just person according to the third medical intent. As much as the doctor must uphold justice, there is also a need to act with beneficence in case of unwanted pregnancy. It is, however, a complicated matter as keeping the pregnancy would amount to injustice while aborting would equal disrespect for human life.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the ethical views of abortion are confusing as they always conflict and contradict. As the pro-choice arguments uphold the right to choose, the pro-life arguments hold to the fact that every human has a right to life. In such a case, it would be hard to take positions unless one chooses to go with the religious and other standpoints on abortion. There are a lot of arguments spiking up all over the world, and whenever abortion Bills are tabled, it meets a lot of emotional and staunch arguments. Abortion is a matter of life and death and should be handled with utmost caution.
Reference
Abu-Baker, R. Z., & Mrayyan, M. T. (2019). ABORTION: LEGAL AND ETHICAL ARGUMENTATIONS. International Journal of Medical and Biomedical Studies, 3(12).
David, A. S. (2016). Medical ethics Made easy: A Book Review. Education in Medicine Journal, 8(3).
Furedi, A. (2016). A Matter of Choice. The Moral Case for Abortion (pp. 121-142). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Hwang, K. H., Yoo, Y. S. & Cho, O. H. (2016). Sexual discrimination, attitudes toward sexual health, and consciousness of biomedical ethics in Korea. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 44(6), 899-909.
Kenney, A. M. (2019). A Matter of Health and Safety: Science and the State in Texas Abortion Legislation. In Reproduction, Health, and Medicine. Emerald Publishing Limited.
Marshall, M. F. (2016). An Incautious Tale of Biomedical Ethics, Abortion Politics, and Political Expediency. Narrative inquiry in bioethics, 6(1), 28-31.
Svenaeus, F. (2018). Phenomenology of pregnancy and the ethics of abortion. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, 21(1), 77-87.