Introduction
The act of abortion is considered by many to be immoral by many, others would say just the opposite, and some would deem it immoral yet still permissible. Here I aim to take an objective stance upon the issue, based upon morality. I could just as easily take a religious stance to convince people of my faith, but that argument only will apply to my fellow peers of faith, therefore I argue upon a morality issue. To me the act of abortion in nearly all cases is immoral and this is the position that I will be arguing from. I will cover some main arguments, such as the beginning of life, the “personhood” of a human , and the mother’s right. It is important to note that this argument is upon human rights not legal rights of a current …show more content…
Many hold the underlining premise is that many will consider the fetus to be not human, or a person, or has no rights until the fetus is viable if it were to be pulled outside of the womb. And others will say that the fetus has no rights until “said” function of the fetus’s body is operating, i.e. a heartbeat, brain activity, first breath, or pain sensors. Both of these arguments foundations are built upon sand, they can change and shift to suit one’s opinion rather than objectively say what defines the human being and with that definition of human being comes human rights to the …show more content…
This argument draws a line that has inconsistencies all throughout. The point of viability for a fetus on average is 24 weeks, at this point the fetus has brain activity and functioning organs. Therefore, any abortion from this stage onward is considered immoral and a violation of one’s right to life. But, if a fetus were to develop early and be viable at 23 weeks, or 22 weeks into the pregnancy. Then do you move back the abortion period, move it back to 21 weeks? If the abortion period were to be moved back to say 15 weeks for example that would catch all points of viability. But, the objectifiable premise of human rights is a right to life, not right to human viability. Life of that human biologically starts at the point of conception. The human is created when sperm meets egg and a living single cell zygote. This is the very beginning of life of the genetically deemed human. It may not look like a human or be viable, but this is, by definition, the beginning of the human life. This is not the opinion of any religious organization or political movement, but the scientific determination on the stages of life of any living organism. Thereby, if morality is to be grounded upon facts and reasoning, the beginning of life should be determined to be at conception, not by the
The act of abortion is considered by many to be immoral by many, others would say just the opposite, and some would deem it immoral yet still permissible. Here I aim to take an objective stance upon the issue, based upon morality. I could just as easily take a religious stance to convince people of my faith, but that argument only will apply to my fellow peers of faith, therefore I argue upon a morality issue. To me the act of abortion in nearly all cases is immoral and this is the position that I will be arguing from. I will cover some main arguments, such as the beginning of life, the “personhood” of a human , and the mother’s right. It is important to note that this argument is upon human rights not legal rights of a current …show more content…
Many hold the underlining premise is that many will consider the fetus to be not human, or a person, or has no rights until the fetus is viable if it were to be pulled outside of the womb. And others will say that the fetus has no rights until “said” function of the fetus’s body is operating, i.e. a heartbeat, brain activity, first breath, or pain sensors. Both of these arguments foundations are built upon sand, they can change and shift to suit one’s opinion rather than objectively say what defines the human being and with that definition of human being comes human rights to the …show more content…
This argument draws a line that has inconsistencies all throughout. The point of viability for a fetus on average is 24 weeks, at this point the fetus has brain activity and functioning organs. Therefore, any abortion from this stage onward is considered immoral and a violation of one’s right to life. But, if a fetus were to develop early and be viable at 23 weeks, or 22 weeks into the pregnancy. Then do you move back the abortion period, move it back to 21 weeks? If the abortion period were to be moved back to say 15 weeks for example that would catch all points of viability. But, the objectifiable premise of human rights is a right to life, not right to human viability. Life of that human biologically starts at the point of conception. The human is created when sperm meets egg and a living single cell zygote. This is the very beginning of life of the genetically deemed human. It may not look like a human or be viable, but this is, by definition, the beginning of the human life. This is not the opinion of any religious organization or political movement, but the scientific determination on the stages of life of any living organism. Thereby, if morality is to be grounded upon facts and reasoning, the beginning of life should be determined to be at conception, not by the