Abortionas a Fundamental Reproductive Right for Women
Abortionas a Fundamental Reproductive Right for Women
Abortionhas been a controversial topic for many years, and no clear positionhas been taken to indicate whether it is morally right or wrong. Theproponents of the idea that abortion is a fundamental reproductiveright that ought to be enjoyed by all women hold that the fetus doesnot qualify to be considered as human being, while the opponentsbelieve that life starts at the point of conception (Gordon, 2015). In this paper an argument that the fetus does not have the moralstatus will be presented. This argument will be based on the casestudy of a violinist who was found unconscious by the Society ofMusic Lovers. The society kidnapped a man and plugged the violinistto him in order to remove poison from him through the kidneys of theabducted man. The plugging will be equated to a connection between apregnant woman and the fetus, for the sake of argument. In thispaper, an argument that abortion is a fundamental reproductive rightthat should be enjoyed by women without being forced by thegovernment to bring pregnancies to term will be made.
Theright to unplug the violinist
Adecision to remain plugged to the violinist with the objective ofsaving his life can be considered as an act of kindness, and not anobligation. This implies that the abducted man has an absolute rightto unplug himself. Although the violist has the right to life, he hasno moral or ethical grounds to depend on the body of another personto enjoy this right. By being plugged, the violist is using thekidneys of the kidnapped man to facilitate his recovery through thegradual extraction of poison. The kidnapped person has been assuredthat he will not die, but that does not justify the use of his organs(kidney) to help the violinist enjoy his right to life. By unpluggingthe violinist, the kidnapped man will be denying him the access tohis kidney, which he has no right (Denbow, 2013).
Thegovernment’s use of force to ensure that kidnapped man remainsplugged
Thegovernment has a duty to protect the life of the violinist, but thatcannot override the autonomy of the kidnapped man. This is becauseall human beings have the fundamental right to take control overtheir own bodies. They also have the right to make decisions on allmatters that affect the well-being of their bodies without undueinfluence of an external force (Denbow, 2013). The principle ofautonomy holds that people can be allowed to enjoy their right tochoose by maximizing their options (Denbow, 2013). This implies thatthe government should maximize the options available to the kidnappedman by allowing him to choose between remaining plugged andunplugging. This is the most appropriate decision that should beconsidered by any government that respects the autonomy of itspeople, instead of limiting the man to a single course of action,which is to remain plugged by force.
Someproves made by violinist’s case about abortion
Thecase study proves that abortion is a fundamental reproductive rightthat should be enjoyed by women without being restricted by thegovernment through the legal or stigmatization by the society. Thisimplies that the decision on whether the pregnancy should be allowedto develop to term or terminated before maturity should be left atthe discretion of the pregnant woman (Gordon, 2015). This is foundedon the notion that pregnancies affect the health and the biologicalfunctions of the women’s body, which gives them the absolute rightto determine whether they are psychologically and physically fit tocarry the pregnancy until delivery time. In addition, the case studyproves that the life and the right of the pregnant woman should begiven a priority over the life of the fetus. Similarly, the life ofthe kidnapped man and his right to make decisions that affect his ownbody could not be pegged on violinist’s risk of death or right tolife.
Consistencyof violinist`s case with the Noonan’s argument
Theargument made by Noonan supports the idea of the Roman Catholic,which holds that life starts at the point of conception. This givesthe fetus the right to enjoy all rights that a born human being wouldhave. From Noonan’s perspective, it would be immoral to abort sincesuch an action would be considered as the violation of the fetus’right to life (Gordon, 2015). This idea can only be advanced for thesake of argument, since fetus has does not have the status ofpersonhood. An object with moral rights and the status of personhoodshould have at least self-consciousness and rationality (Gordon,2015). Although the fetus shares the same species and the geneticcomposition with the pregnant woman, it does not have sufficientqualities to be given moral as well as legal rights. Therefore, theanalysis of the case of violinist opposes the Noonan’s argument byshowing that the fetus does not have an equal value to ordinary humanlife.
Conclusion
Womenhave the right to abort without being pressured by the government tocarry the pregnancy to maturity, since abortion is their fundamentalreproductive right. Abortion should be considered as a fundamentalreproductive right that should be enjoyed by all women without beingrestricted by the government or the society. Pregnancy affects thehealth and economic well-being of women, which implies that they havea fundamental right to determine whether it should be allowed to growto maturity or terminated through abortion. The fetus lackssufficient qualities to be given the status of personhood, whichimplies that it does not enjoy equal rights to human beings, who havealready been born. Therefore, the case of violinist teaches thatforcing women to avoid abortion violates their right to makeautonomous decisions on issues affecting their health.
References
Denbow,J. (2013). Abortion: When choice and autonomy conflict. BerkeleyJournal of Gender, Law, and Justice,20 (1), 216-228.
Gordon,J. (2015). Abortion.Bochum: Ruhr University Bochum.