The paradoxical nature of whether a foetus (referred to, herein, as both foetus and fetus) is a human being is a long held discussion. Before I begin, it must be asked why the morality surrounding abortion is in such debate. Many assume that the issues surrounding the topic of humanity and abortion originates from religious perspectives. Yet, many, such as Daniel Maguire (2001), argue for abortion using religious rationale (Kaczor 2011). However, let us first address what we already consider to be morally impermissible; murder. The murdering of a human being can be considered both illegal and immoral. For the purpose of this essay, I will assume that murder (adopting the general Christianity-influenced view), is absolutely immoral and that
…show more content…
Many argue that an unborn foetus has the same rights as human beings, that being of a legal and religious nature. These are referred to as ‘pro-life’. Others, pro-choice’, polemically dismiss this claim as being nonsensical, arguing, instead, that a foetus cannot be considered a human being since it has neither sentience (consciousness) nor the capacity to reason. Whether this can be held as fact, is entirely in dispute. As Dr. Kaczor (2011) suggests, for those who are pro-life, the term foetus is dehumanising, in itself, and can thus lead to the assumption that the foetus is non-human, whilst those who consider themselves pro-choice might argue that to label the unborn as being a child or a baby would indeed bias their case, since ‘killing a baby’ appears more immoral than to ‘kill a foetus’, or, as they phrase it, ‘terminating a …show more content…
If we are to assume that a foetus is not human, and therefore abortion is morally acceptable, then where can a line be drawn? If a foetus is not a human, would abortion be allowed in any case? By endorsing the school of thought whereby a foetus does not have the capacity to be aware of itself (therefore not human), would this lead to exploitation? The moral implications of permitting the termination of a pregnancy could lead to the abusion of abortion that would raise moral debate. Presently, we hold the view of preventing the sperm meeting the egg, not as abortion, but as contraception (Kaczor 2011). However, abortion, should it be held in a moral light and legalised, might be used as a form of contraception itself, although the pregnancy is, by this stage, fully initiated. This would be an unintended side effect of accepting both the foetus as being human and abortion, therefore, being moral. To take the small step of accepting a foetus as a sentient human, it can lead to a chain of events where the result has a significant effect on the morality of the topic (Wingate 2014). If indeed a foetus is not human, it is possible that we require some guidance as to when the termination of a pregnancy is morally correct and just. As Frost (1936) suggests, “though there is no fixed line between wrong and right, there are roughly zones whose laws must be obeyed”. Perhaps, then, either we accept a foetus
Many argue that an unborn foetus has the same rights as human beings, that being of a legal and religious nature. These are referred to as ‘pro-life’. Others, pro-choice’, polemically dismiss this claim as being nonsensical, arguing, instead, that a foetus cannot be considered a human being since it has neither sentience (consciousness) nor the capacity to reason. Whether this can be held as fact, is entirely in dispute. As Dr. Kaczor (2011) suggests, for those who are pro-life, the term foetus is dehumanising, in itself, and can thus lead to the assumption that the foetus is non-human, whilst those who consider themselves pro-choice might argue that to label the unborn as being a child or a baby would indeed bias their case, since ‘killing a baby’ appears more immoral than to ‘kill a foetus’, or, as they phrase it, ‘terminating a …show more content…
If we are to assume that a foetus is not human, and therefore abortion is morally acceptable, then where can a line be drawn? If a foetus is not a human, would abortion be allowed in any case? By endorsing the school of thought whereby a foetus does not have the capacity to be aware of itself (therefore not human), would this lead to exploitation? The moral implications of permitting the termination of a pregnancy could lead to the abusion of abortion that would raise moral debate. Presently, we hold the view of preventing the sperm meeting the egg, not as abortion, but as contraception (Kaczor 2011). However, abortion, should it be held in a moral light and legalised, might be used as a form of contraception itself, although the pregnancy is, by this stage, fully initiated. This would be an unintended side effect of accepting both the foetus as being human and abortion, therefore, being moral. To take the small step of accepting a foetus as a sentient human, it can lead to a chain of events where the result has a significant effect on the morality of the topic (Wingate 2014). If indeed a foetus is not human, it is possible that we require some guidance as to when the termination of a pregnancy is morally correct and just. As Frost (1936) suggests, “though there is no fixed line between wrong and right, there are roughly zones whose laws must be obeyed”. Perhaps, then, either we accept a foetus