1. Hui Wu 10054275
Composition 1 1031 Section 75
William Allred
November 29, 2016
My Views on Abortion from the Perspective of Ethics
Abortion is a hot topic in postmodern bioethics and a common
issue in modern society. Although abortion does not trigger
controversy and opposition in many countries, in Europe,
especially in the United States, the debate on abortion is very
intense. On one hand, some people believe that human life
begins at the moment the mother’s fertilization, and each life is
sacred, so they are in favor of focusing on life and therefore
strongly oppose abortion; others believe that abortion is a
woman's free choice and a woman's right, so they are in favor of
putting emphasis on selection, thus supporting abortion.
(Callahan, 1970) Each side persists on their own views and is
neck and neck, failing to reach a consensus. From the focus of
debate of both sides, we can see that abortion is essentially a
key issue concerning on "what is human being", and involves in
how people understand human life and the moral status, so
researches and investigations on this issue are significant.
Conservatives mainly consist of Catholics and right-wingers in
protestants, and they are opposed to abortion. They generally
resort to the theory of "sanctity of life" but in this paper, I focus
on their philosophical opinions on abortion. (Clark, 1969) The
essence of life is fully recognized that fertilized eggs, embryos
and even infants belong to individual category. They develop in
an ordinary process and genetic science confirms that the fetus
has a human gene, so its nature is rational, thus it has

2. personality from its taking shape and should be given the right
to life. They believe abortion means murder, so it can not be
allowed.
Centrists point out that life begins at a certain stage of
pregnancy and the fetus gradually acquires its life right at a
certain stage of pregnancy. In terms of this stage, they have
different views. It can be divided into three kinds: birth,
viability, fetal movement. Regard birth of the fetus as a
dividing line seems to be the most obvious: it is given right to
life as soon as it was born but it is believed that the mature
fetus actually has no difference with newborn babies.
(Thomson, p.47-66) Determining it’s life and death only by its
being in or out of the womb is extremely unreasonable. The
reason why people would regard birth as a dividing line, mainly
relate to our compassion. Compared with lives that we can see
or hear, we may not feel so sorry for the death of the fetus that
we have never met. Survival ability depends on how much time
fetus can survive outside the womb. However, this dividing line
is also problematic because it varies form different locations
and different times. There exist differences between backward
and developed areas and ancient and modern societies, so this
division is unreasonable. (Petchesky, 1986) In short, the
centrists failed to carve out a convincing line to demonstrate
whether the fetus has the right to life.
Liberals believe that the fetus at any stage of pregnancy does
not have the right to life, so abortion is permitted. They believe
that fetus is not a person, if you want to regard it as a person or
with a moral personality, there are some specific conditions.
Some pointed out that having a moral personality should meet
the following requirements: consciousness, reasoning ability,
the ability to spontaneous action and communication, self-
concept or self-consciousness. Lacking of any one of them, it
can be called personality. And some other liberals argue that
rights are connected with desire, and there exist connections

3. between desires that life has the ability to hold and the desires
that is believed to hold. This desire shows that a life at least
should have rationality or self-consciousness. Therefore, to
become a human or possess moral personality requires for self-
consciousness or rationality. Rationality is the basis of right and
one must be rational to claim the right. Fetus at any stage of
pregnancy do not have rationality, so the fetus can not be
regarded as human. As the right to life is one of the human
rights, the fetus dose not have.
Christians believe God has his own will for everything
happened, and abortion is the same. Biblical principle is not to
murder life, because it is God's commandments. As mentioned
earlier, since the fetus is a person, abortion means murdering,
therefore contrary to God’s will. (Philip, p.187) From the
current situation, this phenomenon can be divided into
therapeutic abortion and non-therapeutic abortion. The former
refers to that in particular cases, the fetus would influence or do
spiritual harm to the mother. It is generally accepted by the
church. But how to define the therapeutic abortion and non-
therapeutic abortion now becomes a issue.
Islamic laws ban partial birth abortion to protect unborn new
life and stop some doctors who do not appreciate God’
blessings. They believe they are like ignorant people in ancient
times. Whether after birth or before birth, babies are defenseless
without making faults, killing them astray behavior is a sin, and
Allah will punished them. Forcing a pregnant women to have an
abortion is a big sin, because the lives of children do not begin
from it was born. Before birth abortion also equals to killing a
people.
Buddhists’ views on abortion are scattered inside the Buddhist
missionary content. It defines abortion as a kind of killing and a
serious violation of the rules and prohibitions of Buddhism, so
abortionists and those assisting abortions will suffer serious

4. retributions. And in the Buddhist doctrine, the abortion violates
the capital crime, which is the most serious sin in the Five
Disciplines. Overall, Buddhists believe that the fetus should be
regarded as a life from the start of the formation of a fertilized
egg, and doctors along with parents are killers if they perform
abortion.
Man is born equal, but he is everywhere in chains. People are
free, freedom in the legal term is the only right human
inherited, and real freedom and responsibility can not be
separated. Generally speaking, freedom is inherited. Freedom is
independent of the will of others and naturally relative. In other
words, freedom and rights, relatively speaking have limits.
(Quay, p.395) And at the same time, each limit is specific
boundaries and which are subjected to internal and external
constraints. Freedom means not only individuals to have the
opportunity to choose and bear the burden of choice, but also
means that he must bear the consequences of their actions and
accept praise or condemn of others. Therefore even if the
corresponding limit should be exerted to freedom of abortion,
such restrictions itself should be limited.
Unrestricted abortion freedom will violate the right to life. For
the protection for fetus’ right to lift and the protection for the
freedom of women, the state can choose only one, because
abortion bounds to destroy fetal life, and the two can not be
reconciled. Therefore, the constitutional law must weigh against
the conflict and interest. Its standards rely on their
constitutional values and cores of constitutional system--their
relationship with human dignity. (Quinn, p.577) Obviously, the
relationship between human life and human dignity is much
more closer. The protection of fetal life must prior to the
respect for the self-determination of pregnant women. This
principle fit for the whole pregnancy process, not just in a
particular period. Only ethics and human nature that are
compatible with morality can shape human’s dignity.

5. In conclusion, the major religious attitude towards abortion are
basically negative. And judging from the results of all abortions
are wrong, and no abortion, contraception, birth control
together. In any case, protecting and extending the life are
moral. Life and death are not allowed to be violated, so I
support the basic ideas of major religious denominating
opinions to respect the right to life. The right to life is far
greater than women's right to choose, and the right to life
should be regarded as inviolable authority. However, this point
of view in the specific implementation process will inevitably
have to face challenges from various real-world problems.
Works Cited:
Clark, Tom C. "Religion, Morality, and Abortion: A
Constitutional Appraisal." Loy.
ULAL Rev. 2 (1969): 1.
Callahan, Daniel. Abortion: Law, choice, and morality.
Macmillan Pub Co, 1970.
Harrison, Beverly Wildung. Our right to choose: Toward a new
ethic of abortion. Vol.
673. Beacon Pr, 1983.
pa Foot, Philip. "The problem of abortion and the doctrine of
the double effect."
Applied ethics: Critical concepts in philosophy 2 (2002): 187.
Petchesky, Rosalind Pollack. Abortion and woman's choice: The
state, sexuality, and
reproductive freedom. London: Verso, 1986.

6. Quay, Eugene. "Justifiable Abortion--Medical and Legal
Foundations." Geo. LJ 49
(1960): 395.
Quinn, A. James, and James A. Griffin. "Rights of the Unborn,
The." Jurist 31 (1971):
577.
Thomson, Judith Jarvis. "A defense of abortion." Philosophy &
Public Affairs (1971):
47-66.