The process where an expectant woman terminates the pregnancy is called abortion. Recently, there has been a lukewarm reception of abortion seeking. This means that abortion morality has continued to receive a warm welcome from some people. An increased acceptance of abortion means that it is considered moral. While debating on approving abortion, the time element has also been considered. When should abortion be conducted? This question lays ground a strong justification for abortion. If it is done within the sixteen weeks of pregnancy, then proposers of abortion would tie it to morality because no life of a person has been lost. Some researchers have also offered counterarguments of abortion morality, meaning that they are for abortion immorality. This mixed reaction has generated a compelling question, “Is abortion moral or immoral? In addressing this question, it will be important not only to focus on the works of the researchers. For that reason, the focus needs to be on the religious and cultural interpretations of abortion. Most cultural and religious institutions believe that it is illegal to do an abortion. This overlooks the personal account of abortion seeking. To effectively argue about whether it is moral or immoral to do an abortion, it is important to examine what the researchers are saying, personal decisions, and interpretations of cultural, religious, and political institutions. From the evidence gathered on the topic of abortion morality vs. immorality, my position is that it is moral to do it in some situations, meaning that the position will be grounded on the aspect of permissibility.
Abortion is moral because it is in line with constitutional facets like liberty expression, and access to approved healthcare services. A country sets up constitutional laws to promote morality. The citizens are supposed to follow the constitutional doctrines. A violation of it will be regarded as immoral. Abortion projects a personal decision. If conducted, the woman will be exercising her freedom of expression. In a civilized state, everyone is free to do whatever he or she feels like. A personal decision must be respected. Abortion, which is a decision on health matters has to be respected. Some might use the same constitution to disapprove of abortion. It is immoral to kill and a person who kills another should be subjected to prosecution. The personal decision in this perspective will be repelled as it will lack merit. However, the permissibility of abortion should center on when; the question of why should not be of significant importance (Greasley, 2017) If the expectant woman decides to do it when the pregnancy is within sixteen weeks, then exercising the freedom of expression will be in tuck. This is because the fetus has not developed. The definition of a person should play a critical role to justify the pregnancy termination. A person has developed feelings is aware of the surroundings and has multiple intelligences. The fetus, within the sixteen weeks of pregnancy, has not become a person. There is no scientific proof that the fetus at that period has developed senses like touch, smell, and hearing. This makes it not to be regarded as a person. The decision to abort means that one will be exercising the freedom of expression without compromising another constitutional facet.
As a personal decision, abortion is consolidated by the fundamental right to access acquire quality treatment. It should be noted that abortion falls under the program of sexual health. Everyone regardless of race or gender affiliations has the right to better health treatment. There are policies like the Affordable Care Act that exists to emphasize the provision of healthcare services without being compromised by variable like gender (Pain, 2021). The health policies only facilitate access to better healthcare services. It becomes immoral when the healthcare provider judges the person seeking an abortion. It becomes unconstitutional when the healthcare provider has access to sexual health program. This portrays the insensitive healthcare provider as immoral and the patient seeking abortion as moral. By blocking abortion seeking access, the healthcare provider will be amplifying stigmatization. It means that the healthcare provider negatively perceives the patient seeking an abortion. This healthcare provider will also be disregarding the individual’s choice, indicating a deliberate suppression of the freedom of expression. When faced with a healthcare provider promoting stigmatization, the patient might be forced to turn to unsafe abortion procedures; which may lead to the death of the victim. Moreover, the insensitive healthcare provider will be instead perceived immoral. Also, when accessing the sexual health program, the healthcare provider will advise on how to do safe abortion. Abortion becomes moral when it is conducted by a healthcare provider who will not put the life of the victim at risk. Sexual health program gives an accurate insight to the woman seeking an abortion. This is when she will know about the status of the fetus and whether it has developed. She will also know if it is healthy to pursue an abortion. One can deem abortion as immoral when one puts her life at risk. It means that abortion that has followed safe procedures is moral. The morality of safe abortion is grounded by researches done in reputable global health institutions like the International Women’s Health Coalition (Reynolds-Wright, 2013). If safe abortion was immoral, then it would not have been given the nod by the International Women’s Health Coalition.
Just like sexual health, psychological health is important and should not be compromised. Unfortunately, there has been an increasing number of psychological problems related to abortion. Some of the women seeking abortion have mental issues and facing stigmatization out of it will be immoral (Reardon, 2018). This means that we should listen and embrace those seeking an abortion because there has to be a substantial reason behind abortion seeking. The reasons are the circumstances compounding to abortion seeking. The reason may include early pregnancy, defilement, incest, rape, sexual harassment, and abusive partner. The healthcare providers in charge of the sexual health program and psychologists should partner to address the issue (Greasley, 2017). This association is informed by the existing researches about the relationship between abortion and adverse psychological health. A pregnancy obtained from incest, defilement, and rape exerts trauma to the victim. The victim will be under duress. This might force the victim to seek an abortion. In case of abortion seeking, healthcare providers should inform the victim of the ideal decision. It will be moral when the decision of abortion is made, especially if the victim is of sound mind. This means that post-rape counseling should precede abortion-seeking decisions. The healthcare provider should be aware of the stigmatization related to defilement, rape, and incest. In these circumstances, it will be moral to abort the pregnancy. This is to prevent the victim from committing suicide. The societal stigmatization could be overwhelming. Terminating the pregnancy in its earliest stages will be vital. Pregnancy is a result of a traumatic experience. Terminating it will symbolize moving on and leaving behind the marks of trauma. If the healthcare provider disregards abortion on this merit, and the victim becomes overwhelmed with stigmatization to the extent of committing suicide, then he or she will be the destroyer in life.
Conclusion- Counter Argument and Position Consolidation
The Deontological Theory counters approval of abortion. The theory uses the preexisting laws to discredit or credit an action (Dean, 2010). Most states have discredited abortion. This means that we do have an option but to accept that abortion is immoral; based on the existing laws. Another counterargument is on killing one’s future. Suppose the majority of the world’s population was subjected to abortion, then there is a chance many of us would not have been born to grow into successful persons. Aborting kills future persons (Greasley, 2017). This denies the country noble persons. Without conception, birth, which is an introduction to the world will not occur. It means that we can experience the world’s events through conception. This discredits those saying that it is moral to do an abortion within the first sixteen weeks. Even if the fetus has not developed, it is immoral to terminate it. Now on the topic of whether abortion is immoral or moral, a cautious approach should be taken in the investigation. The position of abortion morality will triumph when the issue of permissibility is reviewed and analyzed. This is to say that abortion should not be automatically approved.
References
Dean, R. (2010). Does neuroscience undermine deontological theory?. Neuroethics, 3(1), 43-60.
Greasley, K. (2017). Arguments about abortion: Personhood, morality, and law. Oxford University Press.
Pain, P. (2021). Framing the Affordable Healthcare Act: Examining Alternative and Mainstream Media Approaches. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 01968599211040839.
Reardon, D. C. (2018). The abortion and mental health controversy: a comprehensive literature review of common ground agreements, disagreements, actionable recommendations, and research opportunities. SAGE open medicine, 6, 2050312118807624.
Reynolds-Wright, J. (2013). The moral and philosophical importance of abortion. Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care, 39(1), 51-53.
write