Abortion is the most obvious expression of the moral collapse of a nation, as it is an act of aggression directed against the most innocent beings and most defenseless. Abortion is not a solution without consequences. "He hit the mother, the child in a couple hits, hit the company strikes in God ..."
The daily life of our century has made medical practice called: abortion commonplace in every corner possible strada.Multe women do not consider the negative implications of such a medical act and is subject several times annually. Abortion can not be compared with the ingestion of tablets or removal of a tooth. There are two camps that divide two different ideas:
1. First, I think for reasons both religious and secular, that an embryo has the right to life. For religious reasons, women should not oppose the will of God to bear a child. Secular reasons, those who support it, consider that the fetus is a human being who has the right to life (in their view, abortion is equal to murder).
2. The others, feminists, believe that a woman's right to decide what happens to his body. They believe that the embryo is a female body part. For example: if a woman is raped and a pregnancy results, they believe she has the right to abortion.
In some cases women abort because of poor access to information about contraception or because of problems with the contraceptive method adopted. Women who become pregnant through rape or incest often choose abortion ptr, while others may choose it as a way to save their lives.
Many women choose abortion as a result of bringing the fatusului aware of certain defects. The number of abortions committed in this complaint will no doubt increase as prenatal tests become increasingly common and more frequent.
For many women, the decision whether or not abortion is a very agonizing and is taken only after it considered the potential benefit of mother and child, and all those involved.
J.J. Thomson said: "I propose therefore to accept that the unborn child, from conception, a person. If we admit this, as now continue the argument? As we understand, something like this. Everyone has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has the right to decide what will happen with his body, everyone will accept it. But surely a person's right to life is stronger and more strigent than the mother's right to decide what happens with her body. Therefore can not be uncis fetus can not have an abortion. "
Sometimes abortion is not made because of an unwanted pregnancy, but because the woman or fatusului life is in danger if the pregnancy progresses. Every year, in Romania, dozens of women die due to abortion. Abortion performed empirical conditions of uncertainty, may be followed by major complications, which, with all the treatment, can lead to disability throughout life or even death. Even if in certain situations, an abortion was not that marked, female body reaction to this aggression is unpredictable, and development is most often to serious complications. Abortion, even if performed safely care, may be followed by serious and difficult to treat complications such as infection and bleeding. These complications can lead to further suffering or to sterility. Repeated abortions due to blood loss and the potential for complications, may lead to progressive weakening of femeii.Avortul health is the issue today and tomorrow's consequences. Abortion leaves a deep wound in the woman's soul, attacking the very essence of her identity, that of being mother to give birth to life. There are few women who consider abortion to their partner's desire. Many women, having gone through an abortion, come to believe that by that act of killing her child consented. Therefore, once the heaviest punishment is the guilt. They believe that all the unfortunate events that have outlived their abortion were inevitable because they deserved. They are tense, have difficulty concentrating, and restless sleep. This anxiety is generated largely by the conflict between women's moral standards and her decision to abort. In the post-abortion woman is likely to go through a depression, to be tested by feelings of worthlessness. This can lead to thoughts of suicide, but few women who have undergone an abortion go to the stage of clinical depression. Usually, the feeling of pain occurs around the anniversary date of abortion once recalling the painful experience of abortion sequences. Abortion is unpleasant experience for any woman. Whether it's caused a miscarriage or a pain is the same. Pain is felt when a life away, but this time a life that was not given a chance. Post-abortion syndrome may occur immediately after surgery or even after several ani.Acesta is the inability of women to express their feelings about pregnancy and abortion question. In addition, she is unable to reconcile the loss and reach a state of inner peace.
Civic organizations consider signing the bill that is on the agenda of the three committees - Judiciary Committee, the committee of human rights and equality commission sanse.Trebuie amended to eliminate confusing and contradictory provisions that increase the risk of future abusive interpretations which could endanger the physical integrity of women's right to dispose of her body and the right to privacy and familie.Drepturile women, whether married, are in partnership relationships, married but living alone, divorced, widowed Or that are not listed in any of the situations can not be restricted or eliminated. They have the right to take autonomous decisions regarding all aspects of their health status.
There are philosophers who believe that moral philosophy needs a philosophical logic, an example is Professor Judith Jarvis Thomson authored an article on abortion, rightly praised for its ingenuity and vivacity examples.
"In writing about abortion, the focus was mainly on what may or may not make a person A3a in response to the abortion of a person. In a sense, this concentration of attention is incomprehensible, because there are many women and can cause one to a safe abortion. To treat the problem in this way does not agree that the status of the mother which, on the other hand, they insist so much in terms of fetus. Because we can not deduce what a person can do what another can do.
Let us call the position where abortion is prohibited after even when it comes to save the life of the mother "extreme position. " I want to show first that it does not arise as a conclusion of the argument that I mentioned earlier if not add some pretty strong assumptions. Suppose that a woman became pregnant and now suffers from a heart problem that will cause death at birth. What can be done ptr it? Fetus as a person has the right to life. But as the mother in turn is a person and she has the right to life. It is assumed that the mother and fetus has an equal right to life. How can it derives from here that abortion is not allowed? If the mother and child have an equal right to life, should we not give a coin to decide ptr? Or should I add the right to life of the mother her right to decide what happens with his body as that everyone seems willing to accept? now exceeds the sum of its rights as important fatusului right to life.
This place is the next most familiar argument. We are told that abortion is to make uncizi child directly, while doing nothing does not mean to kill her mother, only to let it die.
Furthermore, killing an innocent person to kill the child because the child has not committed any crime and he aims his mother's death.
The argument can be continued on a variety of ways: as direct killing of innocent people is a crime, murder is always and absolutely unacceptable, we can not allow an abortion. Or, as our duty not to directly kill an innocent person is more damaged than the duty not to let a person die, then you prefer to let a person die and thus can not allow an abortion.
Course extreme position could be weakened as follows: we say that if we allow abortion to save mother's life ptr, yet he can not be challenged by a third person, but only by the mother herself. But even this position can not be correct. Because we have to take into account the fact that the mother and unborn child are not like "two tenants" in a small house that has been entrusted, through unfortunate mistake, both of: the house is "owned" by the mother. This increases the difficulty to infer the conclusion that the mother can not do anything ptr as a person can not do anything A3a. But not only that: such is put into a clearer light the assumption that a third person can not nimic.Anume, to observe a third person who says: <<Do you can choose between doi>> is fooling himself if he thinks that means fairness. Should we really question: what basis does this <<nimeni can not alega>> as long as the body that holds the child's mother? It may just be unable to take account of this last fact. But it could be about something more interesting, namely that you have the right to refuse to use violence against people, even when it would be just and right thing to do, even when it seems right for someone to do it.
When the mother's life is in danger, the argument which I mentioned at the beginning seems more convincing: "Everyone has the right to life, so the unborn person has, in turn, the right to life." But is it right to life child is more important than any mother could provide basis for an abortion, to exept her own right to life?
This argument treats the right to life as it would not raise any problem. It should, indeed, ask ourselves what it means to have the right to life? According to some, to have the right to life means having the right to receive even the minimum necessary to continue to live. But what happens if, say, that the minimum a person needs to continue living is something he has no right to receive it? Sometimes the problem arises right to life in a more strictly. It admits that it does not include the right to receive something, but consists solely in the right not to be killed by anyone. Here is a similar difficulty. We take as given the fact that if a pregnancy due to rape, the mother gave no unborn person's right to use the body food and shelter ptr.
Suppose that a woman accept voluntary sexual intercourse and is aware of the possibility that they have resulted in a pregnancy and then remain indeed pregnant, is she not responsible ptr this fact for the very existence of her unborn person? No doubt that she invited her inside. Challenge an abortion would amount to deprivation of the unborn something and therefore he is entitled to commit an injustice to him.
In this case the question would also question whether a woman may or may not even kill him to save his own life: if he voluntarily gave his life, how could now kill even to save his own life?
I finish just as I started saying that my argument is based on an ethical theory developed, this theory provides the logical foundation of the golden rule. Also, although not based on a utilitarian principle, it provides the basis for a certain kind of utilitarianism which avoids the defects that are usually utilitarian theories. But I now try to justify the last assertion. If they have the perspective that we have moved it in this work are called into question, the dispute can not wear ethical theory than the land itself. It is therefore regrettable that so many people think they can talk about abortion without clarify their views on fundamental issues. "
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu