Ethics comprises the moral principles that govern and influence an individual or group’s conduct and behavior. Although laws and legislations outline how humans ought to live and coexist, there are the intrinsic intuitions that are more assertive and dictate our day-to-day life. One of the most controversial subjects is abortion, in the context of both support and opposition. Whatever angle from which we could look at the issue, a concrete answer seems to be elusive. According to Brennan et al, “the right to life is a fundamental human right in comparison to all other human rights” (Brennan et al, 207), and no one has the right to end another’s life. In the enjoyment of one’s right, however, it is widely acceptable across the globe that, your right must not violate other persons’ rights (Michelman, 1974). Away from the legalistic viewpoint is the eye of character-based ethics. Virtue ethics would complicate the whole debate and invite divergent viewpoints. In this paper, I will argue for a fetus’ right to life, irrespective of the appropriateness of the situation leading to conception; for morality’s sake, the fetus needs to be given a chance live, owing to its innocence.
Is the Mother Ethically Obliged?
Consenting to a sexual intimacy for a woman without proper precautionary measures would most likely lead to pregnancy. When the sperm meets the ovum, conception takes place and therefore consciously or otherwise, human life commences from the woman’s womb. Whatever the legislation, in favor or otherwise, it would be ethically contentious for the woman to deny an ethical obligation towards the unborn. It would be, in other circumstances disputed; nevertheless, the mother’s moral obligation cannot be wished away in the efforts to fight abortion (Chervenak et al, 1985).
What in the Event of Inconvenience?
This debate takes twists and turns in diverse contextual dynamisms varying from cultural, political, socioeconomic, and religious backgrounds. Most of abortion arguments are based on unwanted pregnancies. Variant circumstances would range from juvenile premarital conceptions, rape cases, and failed contraceptives (Chervenak et al, 1985). Without justifying any of the above among other related occurrences, the ethical perspective would override every other persuasion, more often than not. It would be subject to debate that to terminate one’s destiny at this moment of obscurity is to deny him/her the opportunity to join the debate in later times. Most people joining this debate often argue that a woman some years ago overcame all the reasons to terminate a pregnancy. The strength of the thesis argument of this paper regarding the fetus’ right to life awakens the moral and dignity to life question, presenting the realization that every one engaged in this debate was once vulnerable to the choice of others – whether to be terminated or to be allowed to live. A third range of factors, however, present multiple convincing situations to legalize abortion. Some of these prevailing reasons are such as when the mother is in danger, possibly due to sickness, accidents, and similar circumstances. In the event that conception is as a result of rape, a majority of people opt for an abortion.
One subject that attracts more questions than answers is abortion – primarily the question whether the unseen fetus would enjoy the rights to life just as an ordinary person. Though the rights of the fetus would be overshadowed by the rights of the mother, ethical obligation would shed some light on the subject. Several reasons have been framed to safeguard the mother and overlook the unborn. Through the eyes of a character-based ethicist, the fetus must be accorded rights to life just as another human being in another state. This involves opposing any reasons to terminate a defenseless life.
Brennan, F., Carr, D. B., & Cousins, M. (2007). Pain management: a fundamental human right. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 105(1), 205-221.
Chervenak, F. A., & McCullough, L. B. (1985). Perinatal ethics: a practical method of analysis of obligations to mother and fetus. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 66(3), 442-446.
Michelman, F. I. (1974). The Supreme Court and Litigation Access Fees: The Right to Protect One’s Rights. Part I. Duke Law Journal, 1153-1215.