Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Sociological imagination on abortion
Religious views on abortion
Abortion overview argumentation
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Sociological imagination on abortion
In the 1974 ‘Declaration on Procured Abortion’, the Vatican acknowledged that it does not actually know when the foetus becomes a person. Neither St. Augustine nor St. Thomas Aquinas considered the foetus in the early stages of pregnancy to be a person and these men are two of the most important theologians in the Catholic tradition.
Many catholics world wide have rejected the church’s ban on contraception. Only 14% of Catholics agree with the Bishops that abortion should be illegal. Such a low percentage shows a want and maybe a need for change or acceptance on the issue of abortion. Times are changing and Catholics are changing in their traditionally strict views on many issues, to go forward with perhaps a more positive view of the Lord
…show more content…
cleansing us from our sins not punishing us for our mistakes. The ‘Catholics for choice’ website holds accepting views by Catholics; “We believe in a world where every woman and man has access to quality and choice in contraception. Wherever possible, we believe in working to reduce the incidence of unplanned and unwanted pregnancy and that society and individuals should strive to give women and men real choices.” “We believe that women should have access to abortion when they need it, and when, in consultation with their doctors, it can be performed safely. We affirm that the moral capacity and the human right to make choices about whether and when to become pregnant or to end a pregnancy are supported by church teachings. We believe all women have the right to choose.” While the Catholic Church has long taught that abortion is a sin, the reasons for judging abortion as sinful have changed over time. Previously, the church did not pay much attention to abortion except as a sexual issue. Pope Francis has decreed that priests may absolve women of the ‘sin of a procedure of abortion’ during the Holy Year next year. In Catholic teaching, it is normally only bishops or the Pope who may absolve the faithful of the sin of abortion, which usually leads to excommunication from the church. But the Pope seems to want to take a step forward, listening to his people, by not accepting the act and instead helping women of the Catholic Church to recover and guiding them again to become free of sin. One of the five cardinals hoped the Pope’s move would not cause confusion amongst the faithful. He published a book ‘Remaining in the truth of Christ’ which defends marriage and Catholic tradition; “Regardless of the decision made by the Pope, the Church will continue to consider abortion as a sin.” This statement indicates differences of opinion within the church at the highest level and shows how traditional teachings are being looked upon and possibly reconsidered by the Pope within Catholic Church. (www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/pope-to-allow-absolution) There are Implications of holding Catholic values when dealing the issue of abortion, for example rape cases. “Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho of the coastal city of Recife announced that the Vatican was excommunicating the family of a local girl who had been raped and impregnated with twins by her stepfather, because they had chosen to have the girl undergo an abortion. The Church excommunicated the doctors who performed the procedure as well. "God's laws," said the archbishop, dictate that abortion is a sin and that transgressors are no longer welcome in the Roman Catholic Church. "They took the life of an innocent," said Sobrinho, "Abortion is much more serious than killing an adult. An adult may or may not be an innocent, but an unborn child is most definitely innocent. Taking that life cannot be ignored." Abortion is illegal in Brazil except in cases of rape or when the mother's life is in danger, both of which apply in this case. (The girl's immature hips would have made labour dangerous; the Catholic opinion was that she could have had a caesarean section.)” (http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1883598,00.html) These strong views of the Church caused a furore within Brazil and Brazilian devotion to the Catholic Church has declined over the past several years. Where Brazil was once made up almost entirely of Catholics, today only 74% of Brazilians admit allegiance to Rome. Large numbers, especially the urban poor, have defected to Protestant Evangelical sects. Therefore the implications of this view have quite serious ramifications on the numbers still belonging to the Catholic Church. In the Secular world, views on abortion differ to that of the Church. The views within the Secular world say that a foetus cannot exist independent of the mother. As the foetus is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord, its health is dependent on the mother’s health. It cannot therefore be regarded as a separate entity as the foetus cannot exist outside of her womb. They believe the baby is not a person and cannot be considered in personhood so is not an individual, and abortion of that embryo is not the killing of an individual baby. The views of the secular are very much based on facts and science.
The secular arguments are quite straight forward as to why abortion is right or still may be wrong. Within the secular world, abortion is still widely thought of as a wrongful act but in certain circumstances it is accepted; it is not morally right but abortion may be ok in certain circumstances. The Secular worldview believes there is no stage of foetal development at which a foetus resembles a person enough to have a significant right to life. I don’t believe this to be absolutely correct. I believe after 12 weeks the foetus has started to develop into a human baby, limbs are forming and a heart is beating so this should be the latest you are allowed to get an abortion. There is no doubt the embryo is genetically human from conception, but it is not a fully developed being at all.
A foetus’s potential for developing into a person does not provide a basis for the claim that it has a significant right to life. Even if a potential person has some right to life, that right should not outweigh the right of a woman to obtain an abortion, as I believe the rights of any actual person invariably outweigh those of any potential
…show more content…
person. In today’s world there are clinics set up such as Family Planning and specialist medical centres where women can go to get abortions safely and confidentially. Women of all ages can also seek advice and information about any matters to do with sexual health from a reasoned and non-biased perspective. There are pros and cons to these services being available as young girls who don’t want their parents to know about their sexual encounters or possible abortion can go there confidentially. This can be seen as unacceptable by some/most parents as they feel their daughters shouldn’t make such life changing decisions on their own. At a young age, with no parental support, terminating a pregnancy at these clinics can cause mental and physical pain, confusion and emotional scarring for the young women in the future. A pro for women of the Catholic Church is that they can go there in secret without fear of being found out by the Church. Implications of these actions are they are seen as unsafe by parents especially for young girls.
A petition seeking a law change that would require parents to be informed before their daughter has an abortion, is deemed unnecessary and potentially dangerous, says an abortion rights advocate. Abortion Law Reform New Zealand spokeswoman Annabel Henderson Morell said most teenagers did tell their families when they needed an abortion, and those who did not, did so for their own wellbeing. "Almost always it's because they know that would lead to a situation of coercion where they would be forced to carry through with a pregnancy they don't want to have," she said. "There's also horrible instances of family violence, incest or sexual
abuse." Ms Henderson Morell said if the law changed, it would further stigmatise pregnant teenagers and could in some cases see young women kicked out of home. Students who saw counsellors were promised confidentiality, and the service was bound by the Health Privacy Code. "When it comes to contraception and abortion, the counsellors would need the consent of the person before they could share information with a parent or the school," she said. It is this fact that is angering parents, especially mothers of girls. They feel helpless in this situation which can in turn ruin their mother-daughter relationship. Parents are flabbergasted that under legislation, schools or other organisations do not need to tell them anything. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5005497/Schools-arrange-secret-abortions) From my research it is easy to see why such strong and differing beliefs are held by the Catholic Church and people outside the Catholic Church on the issue of abortion. The Catholic Church believes that human life begins when the woman's egg is fertilised by a male sperm. From that moment a unique life begins, independent of the life of the mother and father. The features that distinguish us from our parents - the colour of our eyes, the shape of our face - are all laid down in the genetic code that comes into existence then. Each new life that begins at this point is not a potential human being but a human being with potential. In contrast to this, the opposing view from outside the Church is that a foetus cannot exist independent of the mother. As it is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord, its health is dependent on her health, and cannot be regarded as a separate entity as it cannot exist outside her womb. This difference of opinion as to when a foetus is considered to be a human causes confusion and different ethical views between the Catholic Church, and people from the secular world. The secular world holds different values which guide them with natural law to believe abortion to be morally right or wrong. Different views on abortion also arise from the level of understanding of different situations and values/traditions within the Church and the secular world. The Church values life and all God’s creations. Traditions teach any destruction of life is seen as a grave sin against the Creator and ruining the relationship held between human kind and God, which is what Catholics understand. The valuing of God compared to the secular world view being scientifically based and having no spiritual values of life, provides the difference in understanding of each situation. The secular world considers more lawful and scientific reasoning, allowing more acceptances of cases for abortion. To conclude, the Church is very much pro-life whereas the Secular view is clearly pro-choice. The key beliefs of the Catholic Church and Secular worldview appear to be very much opposite, but with deeper analysis they also show similarities - the two worlds start to look less like rivals. The Catholic Church is very much religious based and holds strong beliefs in spirituality and God the almighty, whereas Secular worldview is very scientific and literally based. They live a non-religious life. Arguments between the two parties about the act of abortion being morally and or ethically right or wrong do lead to hatred between people in society, mental and emotional harm to women, families and babies, and a divide in society. This can cause confusion within women and causes them to lose their self-confidence. By having more of an understanding of both the Catholic and Secular worlds’ beliefs we can avoid this destruction of a woman’s sense of belonging, destruction of lives (mothers, families and children), and start living with acceptance, fairness and understanding of such an ethical issue as abortion. We should come together to resolve the issue of abortion not separate the two worlds entirely.
Thomson starts off her paper by explaining the general premises that a fetus is a person at conception and all persons have the right to life. One of the main premises that Thomson focuses on is the idea that a fetus’ right to life is greater than the mother’s use of her body. Although she believes these premises are arguable, she allows the premises to further her explanation of why abortion could be
In Dan Marquis’ article, “Why Abortion is Immoral”, he argues that aborting a fetus is like killing a human being already born and it deprives them of their future. Marquis leaves out the possible exceptions to abortion that include: a threat to the mom’s life, contraceptives, and pregnancy by rape. First, I will explain Marquis’ pro-life argument in detail about his statements of why abortion is morally wrong. Like in many societies, killing an innocent human being is considered morally wrong, just like in the United States. Second, I will state my objection to Marquis’ argument by examining the difference between a human being’s already born future compared to a potential fetus’s future.
Mary Anne Warren’s “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion” describes her justification that abortion is not a fundamentally wrong action for a mother to undertake. By forming a distinction between being genetically human and being a fully developed “person” and member of the “moral community” that encompasses humanity, Warren argues that it must be proven that fetuses are human beings in the morally relevant sense in order for their termination to be considered morally wrong. Warren’s rationale of defining moral personhood as showcasing a combination of five qualities such as “consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, capacity of communication, and self-awareness” forms the basis of her argument that a fetus displays none of these elements that would justify its classification as a person and member of the morally relevant community (Timmons 386).
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.
Abortion has been a political, social, and personal topic for many years now. The woman’s right to choose has become a law that is still debated, argued and fought over, even though it has been passed. This paper will examine a specific example where abortion is encouraged, identify the Christian world views beliefs and resolution as well as the consequences of such, and compare them with another option.
The conservative argument asserts that every person has a right to life. The foetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what happens in and to her body. But surely a person’s right to life is stronger than the mother’s right to decide what shall happen to her body, and so outweigh it. So the foetus may not be killed and an abortion may not be performed (Thomson, 1971)
Like Kaposy, Peter addresses a debate between a few different sources. Seipel introduces us to Charles C. Camosy, a professor of ethics and theology and an author of several articles for the Bioethics journal. Seipel quotes Camosy saying, “… a fetus is not an ‘actualized person’ in the sense that it has ‘the actual capacities for personhood,’ namely, ‘rationality and self awareness in time.’ Nonetheless,… fetuses have moral standing as persons because they are what he calls ‘potential persons.’ What are potential persons?… beings that have the potential to be rational and self-aware” (518). Seipel and Camosy are absolutely right. Because of the fact that a fetus is a “potential person,” it is therefore just as valuable and morally unjustifiable to kill as a comatose individual (who also has the potential to be rational and self-aware, but is not either within their current state). Seipel then introduces us to a view held by Jeff McMahan, a professor of moral philosophy at Oxford University who has produced many works regarding the issue of abortion. McMahan presumes that the right to life is dependent on the “psychological continuity” of the individual. As a rebuttal to this idea, Seipel proposes, “Alzheimer’s victims lack such continuity. Thus, the implication is that just as the death of a fetus is not all that tragic,
Abortion is one of the most controversial issues today. It has become a question of not only ethics, but morals. In the 1973 case of Roe v Wade the Supreme Court ruled that a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy by abortion within the first six months of the pregnancy. However, conservative Presidents have changed the legislation enough to allow states to restrict abortion in various ways (Practical Ethics, Peter Singer). In the following paper, I will summarize the views on abortion of Pope John Paul II and philosopher, Peter Singer. These two men have very conflicting opinions about abortion.
Similar to Mary Anne Warren, I believe that abortions should always remain legal because there is no stage in fetal development in which a fetus resembles a person. Warren does make the distinction that a fetus may resemble a human being because they have a full genetic code and potential of become a person, however, Warren defines a person as someone with the capacity for rational thought, therefore a fetus might resemble a human but doesn’t resemble a person. (Warren, 11). While it is hotly contested, a fetus doesn’t have rational thought. For the most part, people would not consider a fet...
...ther’s sovereignty over her body outweigh the right of an unborn child to live. The answers to these questions are very diverse as a result of the diversity of the American society. With the issue of abortion, one’s attitude toward it is going to be based on many things such as religious background and personal morals. There is no black and white answer to the abortion issue. Luckily we live in a country where we are able to decide for ourselves whether something is morally right or wrong. Thus, ultimately, the choice is ours. As with the many other ethical issues which we are faced with in our society, it is hard to come to a concrete answer until we are personally faced with that issue. All we can do is make an effort to know all of the aspects which are involved so that we may be able to make a sound decision if we were faced with this problem in our own lives.
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.
Over the duration of the last century, abortion in the Western hemisphere has become a largely controversial topic that affects every human being. In the United States, at current rates, one in three women will have had an abortion by the time they reach the age of 45. The questions surrounding the laws are of moral, social, and medical dilemmas that rely upon the most fundamental principles of ethics and philosophy. At the center of the argument is the not so clear cut lines dictating what life is, or is not, and where a fetus finds itself amongst its meaning. In an effort to answer the question, lawmakers are establishing public policies dictating what a woman may or may not do with consideration to her reproductive rights. The drawback, however, is that there is no agreement upon when life begins and at which point one crosses the line from unalienable rights to murder.
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.”
“How far along in a pregnancy is it until the unborn child is considered human? At what point does it receive basic rights?” These propositions have been the topic of one the most controversial discussions of the century. Based on the research I have completed on this topic, it has been made indisputable to me that life begins at the moment of conception.
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.