Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Abortion And Religious Ethics
Abortion And Religious Ethics
Abortion in Christianity
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Abortion And Religious Ethics
Chapter 7 - Abortion
- The basics:
- Views of abortions have changed drastically throughout time and culture
- Abortifacients are substances or devices for inducing abortions
- The hippocratic oath used to prohibit them, although this was ignored by some
- Hebrew and christian scriptures do not denounce abortion or suggest a fetus is a person
- Christians generally condemn abortion and believe the fetus is a person from conception - In English common law, abortion was only a crime is perform after the quickening ( when a mother first detects fetal movement)
- A more meaningful benchmark than the quickening is viability, at 23-24 weeks a fetus may survive outside the uterus
- By the 1970s the American Medical Association and the American College
Abortion is a major debate in society today and has been an impassioned topic for decades. At issue is whether or not abortion should be permissible. Generally I support the idea of abortion given specific circumstances. If a woman becomes pregnant due to rape, she has no moral obligation to carry the baby to full term. It is a gross expectation for society to think a woman should give birth to a baby conceived from rape and to take care of the child as her own. In this discussion I will argue that abortion is permissible if the mother was a victim of rape.
Although the Hebrews were influenced by many of the laws of their Assyrian, Sumerian, and Babylonian neighbors, all of which forbade abortion, the Hebrew scriptures had no laws forbidding abortion, not a single one. This was chiefly because the Hebrews placed a higher value on women than did their neighbors. There are, however, some references to the termination of pregnancy. Exod. 21:22-25 says that if a pregnant woman has a miscarriage as a result of injuries she receives during a fight between two men, the penalty for the loss of the fetus is a fine; if the woman is killed, the penalty is "life for life." It is obvious from this passage that men whose fighting had caused a woman to miscarry were not regarded as murderers because they had not killed the woman. The woman, undeniably, had greater moral and religious worth than did the fetus, which was nothing more than a worthless glob of tissue, a meaningless, lifeless conglomeration of cells - contrary to antichoice people who consider it "human life."
During the nineteenth century laws and public opinion started to change. In 1803, there was the first English Act outlawing abortions. In cases where there was an abortion performed after the quickening, the penalty was death. If the procedure was done before the quickening then the punishment was fourteen years of imprisonment. By 1860 abortions were prohibited in almost all of the states.
...t it is immoral. I also see that it may not be immoral for a woman to abort if she has made the most effort to avoid pregnancy using contraceptives. However, as Thompson states, I think in this situation a mother “ought” not to have an abortion. A fetus should have the right to life, however the mother should also have the right to determine how to use her own body. So I too find it difficult to determine a solid stance on this issue. I’ve always believe that a fetus is a person, but I’ve also always struggled to discern when it is that the fetus becomes a person. Regardless of whatever science can prove or not regarding when a fetus is a person or however much argumentation is done regarding the permissibility of abortion, this topic will forever be surrounded by debate. I don’t believe there will ever a unanimous opinion on whether or not abortion is moral.
According to St. Thomas Aquinas, Catholic priest and philosopher, a fetus is not a human being because it does not possess language or articulated thought - one of the defining aspects of human nature (qtd. in Eco 51). Theoretically speaking, a fetus is not a human until it can think and talk. With that being clarified, the rest of the essay will first include arguments for, and then arguments against, abortion. Karen Pazol, et al.
A Defense of Abortion In her argument on abortion, Judith Thomson discusses some major points about abortion. She deals with extreme cases and those extreme cases help us to realize a single perspective of abortion. For example, she talks about the violinist attached to you. In that example, you keep everything constant and focus on a single point, violinist being dead if you unattached him.
The overall thesis that Thomson presents in “A Defence of Abortion”, is that abortion is permissible no matter the personhood status of the fetus. Their argument addresses various aspects of the issue; the rights of the fetus, the person pregant with the fetus, how those rights interact with each other, third parties and moral obligation. They claim that the rights of a fetus are not any more important than the rights of the person pregnant. However, they also address cases where there would be a sense of moral obligation not to have an abortion. Their discussion about third party participation can be used for other types of necessary third party participation.
Abortion has so many different view points on the topic, some positive some negative. Roe verse Wade played a huge part in the decision making process on abortion. Everyone has their own opinions about abortion but the opinion concerning when life begins had a significant effect on a person’s views concerning whether they are for or against abortion. The studies of long term effects from abortion on women are traumatic and devastating. They can include mental, physical, and emotional problems after an abortion.
Three Works Cited Many people believe abortion is only a moral issue, but it is also a constitutional issue. It is a woman's right to choose what she does with her body, and it should not be altered or influenced by anyone else. This right is guaranteed by the ninth amendment, which contains the right to privacy. The ninth amendment states: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This right guarantees the right to women, if they so choose, to have an abortion, up to the end of the first trimester.
Thou shalt not kill; one-tenth of what may arguably be the most famous guidelines of morality in the western culture, and also the main driving force for pro-life advocates. The argument supporting their beliefs typically starts with the premises that a fetus is a person, and to destroy or to kill a person is unethical. Therefore abortion, the premeditated destruction of a human being, is murder, and consequently unethical. I deny the fact that the fetus, what I will refer to as an embryo up to 22 weeks old, has the right to live. The opposing argument is invalid because a fetus, although perhaps a part of human species, is not formally a person. This leaves it simply to be a part of the woman?s body, whose fate lies solely in the hands of the pregnant woman alone, no different from a tumor she might have. By proving this, the abortion debate then becomes an issue of women?s rights, something that is most controversial indeed. Furthermore, it is fair to question the credibility of many people against abortion because of obvious contradictions in the logic of their belief systems. The fact that this debate is relevant in modern society is ludicrous since there is a simple and plausible solution to this problem that could potentially end the debate for good, leaving both sides satisfied.
But, there are many differences between an actual person and a fetus. First of all, a fetus is completely dependent on the mother. Fetus’s need their mothers in order to be fed correctly, to live in a stable environment, and to grow and expand among many other things. Because the fetus cannot survive on its own, then it does not qualify as a human being. In addition, a fetus that is still inside the womb is only a potential person. The fetus resides inside of the mother, and thus is part of the mother herself until it is born. Another difference between a fetus and a person is that a person can feel pain. Anti abortionist commonly argue that abortion is wrong because it would cause pain to the fetus. But, according to Mark Rosen, an obstetrical anesthesiologist at the University of California at San Francisco, “the wiring at the point where you feel pain, such as the skin, doesn’t reach the emotional part where you feel pain, in the brain.” Furthermore, the thalamus does not form until week 28 of the pregnancy. So, no information, including pain, can reach the cortex in the brain for processing. These facts prove that a fetus would not be affected by the mother’s choice of having an abortion, thus proving Marquis and all other anti-abortionists wrong.
Abortion is one of the most debated topics, some people believe it is immoral while others support this issue. Abortion is define as termination of pregnancy before birth. This article was published by Dennis Prager, who wrote a story that was titled, “Jews and Abortion”. I decided to review this article because most of the world religions are anti-abortion but some religions do allow it. For example, Judaism does not prohibit abortion, it’s one of the many religions that does not perceive abortion as murder, and rather they see it as a need if the mother's life becomes at risk due to the pregnancy. In Judaism an abortion can only be perform only if the child will directly cause the mother to die if it is not aborted.
The permissibility of abortion has been a crucial topic for debates for many years. People have yet to agree upon a stance on whether abortion is morally just. This country is divided into two groups, believers in a woman’s choice to have an abortion and those who stand for the fetus’s right to live. More commonly these stances are labeled as pro-choice and pro-life. The traditional argument for each side is based upon whether a fetus has a right to life. Complications occur because the qualifications of what gives something a right to life is not agreed upon. The pro-choice argument asserts that only people, not fetuses, have a right to life. The pro-life argument claims that fetuses are human beings and therefore they have a right to life. Philosopher, Judith Jarvis Thomson, rejects this traditional reasoning because the right of the mother is not brought into consideration. Thomson prepares two theses to explain her reasoning for being pro-choice; “A right to life does not entail the right to use your body to stay alive” and “In the majority of cases it is not morally required that you carry a fetus to term.”
There are variables that could affect her choice. She could be poor, the child could have a birth defect, and so on. Giving her a right to decide whether she should abort the baby, it’s entirely her choice. What if the mother was raped or she got pregnant from incest? Would you traumatise this mother with the child of the rapist for 9 months, and would you allow an inbred child that will most likely have a disability and be put through literal hell?
It is almost unanimously agreed upon that the right to life is the most important and sacred right possessed by human beings. With this being said, it comes as no surprise that there are few issues that are more contentious than abortion. Some consider the process of abortion as immoral and consisting of the deprivation of one’s right to life. Others, on the opposite end of the spectrum, see abortion as a liberty and a simple exercise of the right to the freedom of choice.