Choice To Abort A Foetus example essay topic

It's our right to chose, so let us! In today's society abortion is now very much common place. For whatever reasons thousands of women a year make the choice to abort their unborn foetus es. Some do it for medical reasons, some do it for psychological reasons and some do it purely because they don't want to have a baby.

No matter what the reason is for them choosing to terminate their pregnancies, it's a fact that it's their choice and right to do so, if they so wish. Raving anti abortionists claim that the means to reproduce, conceive, bare a baby, have a child, whatever term you want to use, is a gift given to us by God, we should treat it accordingly and not abuse nor dismiss it. It's these such lunatics who form pressure groups aimed at persuading the government to ban abortions, go on demonstration marches expressing their views, release campaigns condemning abortions and are cemented outside abortion clinics trying to stop women's entry. These are the people who are trying to take away our choice. Amongst many of their unfounded claims it's said that the foetus has a right to live. They pronounce that the foetus's right to live is regardless when concerning the many reasons why they are to be aborted and that we as human beings are equal to the foetus.

This would mean that we would consequently be infringing on the rights of any foetus if we were to abort it. The problem with their ideology and obviously their philosophy is do foetus es actually have rights? If they do, why do they? When do we give them these rights, at what stage? Do they have the same rights as the mother?

We live in a democratic society where as a fundamental right we have freedom of choice, freedom of will, freedom of speech, all of the necessaries to function in everyday life. As we do have these rights then it's argued that surely these freedoms mean we have the right to terminate our own foetus es if we do so wish? This is one of the rights we do have and exercise. One of the rights we don't posses is the right to murder, kill, end a life. Which isn't what abortion truly is. I say that abortion isn't any of the above because this is a right we have.

We can choose. The problem with anti abortionists is that they don't know the reasoning behind every sort abortion. They just view every situation in one big group, as a collective. They don't look at the relativity of each situation. By them trying to influence the government into prohibiting abortions they are taking away or rights. Unfortunately it may not of occurred to these people but conception of a foetus can happen under many circumstances many of them, for many reasons are out of our own control.

There is a claim from these such activists that the mother has a duty to deliver her foetus, soon to be baby, not end it's life through termination. If there is a claim that the mother has a duty then there is also the suggestion that the mother has an obligation, accountableness and even a responsibility to her foetus. All of these above suggestions suggest that the mother has the control over the foetus es, and one of the connotations of the word control is choice as with control you can do as you wish. This means that the mother has a choice over her foetus. The foetus doesn't have any choices, it can't exercise them. This means that the mother can exert her pending will.

Fertilisation takes place as a consequence of sex, as I'm sure we all know. From the point when the sperm fertilizes the egg a foetus starts to form. This obviously means the process, which starts to create what will be in the end a person has sprung into action. This process on average takes a period of nine months, day by day the foetus becomes more developed.

It forms a heart, lungs, arms, and legs until finally it's ready to be born. Take note that throughout all of these stages the foetus is called exactly that, a foetus, it's not referred to by a name and is only given some sort of identity when it starts to show human like features. I say human like features as this is obviously around the time when you start seeing a nose and a few fingers in the ultrasounds along with feeling the foetus kicking you in the stomach. Yet it is still called a foetus regardless of its personification.

How can there be a claim by anti abortion campaigners that the foetus has the same rights as its mother. A foetus only gains part of it's identity when it starts to look like a person, importantly though is the fact that it's not yet deemed a person but it's mother is! One of the theories to counter that of the question does a foetus have any rights? and if they do, when do they gain them? Is about the development of the foetus. In England the law says that you can't abort a foetus after twenty-four weeks. Does this mean that after twenty-four weeks due to the development of that foetus and it's physical appearance it's now deemed a person with all the rights, which a person has?

If this were the case then it would mean that physical state would determine whether or not a foetus is a person. This would be problematic as foetus es develop at different rates, meaning that one foetus may be more developed at twenty-four weeks than another. Would that mean that one foetus would be a person and the other wouldn't and that the more developed foetus would have the right to live and the undeveloped one wouldn't? What sense if any would that make? Surely whether or not someone is a person can't depend on its physical state. If that was the case the physically less able would have less rights and be determined less of a person than the physically more able.

I think not! Maybe it's because we find it morally less acceptable to terminate a foetus when it looks more like a little baby as we have connotations and emotions placed on the word baby but not on foetus. I say this in the sense that a foetus is just thought of as an unformed mass growing inside your womb but once it looks like a small person it is thought of accordingly. Has the law given these foetus es rights? And if they have are these rights given to the foetus at this stage? Even more importantly do these foetus es deserve such rights and do these rights out weigh those of the mother?

I claim that it's the anti abortionists who further confuse the situation by regarding a foetus in the same way as a baby. I don't think that when concerning the law it's the case that we can't abort after 24 weeks because in their opinion the foetus is a person. It's not purely because in their opinion the foetus is a person but that in the law's opinion, after 24 weeks the foetus is too developed and in many cases even though they would be premature, they can actually, be born. I don't think that it's a case of giving the foetus rights, as it's known that a right is something you can hold, you can't have a right or indeed any rights if you can't exercise them.

It's just a case of humanity and the fact that women are given a responsibility. If women choose to abort a baby it's their responsibility to do it within the time frame. Is this when a foetus becomes a person I hear you cry. Well I think it the case that it's solely to do with the fact that from 24 weeks the foetus can live independently of it's mother.

Every religion in the world has a point of view when it comes to abortion. Strict Catholics believe that abortion is a sin whatever the circumstances. Religion is one of the reasons why abortion is illegal today in some countries for example Ireland. Outlined in this case study are the strong views Catholics hold on this issue. There was a case in the 1980's where a young woman was raped in Italy.

As a consequence of her attack she became pregnant. That woman was a strict Catholic and so sort guidance from the church on what actions she should take. The women told the church that she wanted to abort the child as if the baby was born she didn't feel she could nor would love it due to the constant reminders it would promote concerning her traumatic experience. She also claimed that the consequences would be a mother who would be unstable, a broken marriage and that she would be likely to commit suicide.

The Catholics churches reply was that, "It's your baby, therefore you have a duty to that unborn baby and you as a citizen under catholic rule should take on that duty. The consequences of that duty are regardless. It is no fault of that unborn foetus, it is ignorant to the way in which it was conceived but not that it has been". Even in this extreme circumstance the Catholic Church was unable to show compassion towards the women. She had the baby, as she was order to by her own religion and due to her keeping her strong faith. She later committed suicide and her baby was mother and fatherless.

This shows the relativity of the act to conceive a baby and the decision to have an abortion. You would have thought that due to an extreme situation such as these there would have been a certain degree of acceptance and compassion by the Catholic religion. Clearly as the societies around the world differ so do the laws and attitudes, which infiltrate them. Is it not the case that it is the Catholic Church who is being inhumane? Do their actions seem fair and warranted given the relativity of the conception to the need for an abortion? It's clear what the actual problem with abortion is.

It's clearly the case that there isn't a universal law saying on what grounds an abortion can be granted and the fact that the choice to abort a foetus is relative to the situation. When abortions were first legalized the doctors actually chose whether or not to carry them out due to each individual case but nowadays abortions are so attainable. I think that the problem is that there isn't actually a universal law. In my opinion these anti abortion activists are more concerned with the fact that in their opinion some people are careless with sex and therefore abort foetus es. Okay fair point, I have to say that it may to some seem ridiculous when you hear that women are having abortion after abortion but then who are we to judge, who are they to judge? The reason why their isn't in fact a universal law concerning abortion is because every abortion, every situation, every person is different.

It depends on the situation and how can each situation be weighed up, who gets to chose who does and doesn't get an abortion. It can't be judged. Every case is unique. The problem with anti abortionists is that the act before they think. They can make a traumatic situation even more so through their actions.