Abortions are legal in most states prior to the third trimester; around 26 weeks of pregnancy. What happens between the second and third trimester that no longer allows one to have an abortion? There is difficulty in coming to an agreement to determine if there are any cases in which an abortion is morally permissible, or if an abortion is permissible in all cases. The topic of abortion has been an ongoing debate that has split people into two distinct groups who continue to voice their respective argument, pro-choice versus pro-life. There is a spectrum between the two parties with more moderate versus more extreme ideologies. The extreme pro-choice ideology is that an abortion is morally permissible in all cases. On the other side of the
…show more content…
Lastly, I will present how sentience, although an important factor in determining moral status, must also be combined with decency in determining whether an abortion is permissible; one who opts for a third trimester abortion without good reason fails at being a Minimally Decent Samaritan.
Moral status Moral status has always been assumed to apply to all human beings, referring to homo-sapiens specifically. However, why nearly all homo-sapiens are considered to have moral status has not been completely agreed upon yet. For the purposes of this paper, the word ‘person’ will be used to define someone or something who has moral status. The question being asked is whether animals have moral status or not. To determine whether animals have moral status, one must define what characteristics are necessary to be considered a person. One could make the argument that only homo-sapiens are considered persons, therefore no animals have moral status. The idea that a certain species should have its considerations considered for over those of another species is speciesism, which follows the same arbitrary thinking that racism and sexism undergo. The basic principle of equality is to …show more content…
For the following cases, we will assume sentience, the ability to feel, is necessary for one to have moral status and therefore an equal consideration of interests. Sentience implies that a fetus is not a person until the fetus has the ability to feel. Therefore, using contraception is in no means impermissible since the sperm and ovum alone are not sentient and therefore do not have any interests to consider. Sentience does not develop until around 20 weeks into the pregnancy, therefore any time before then the fetus is not considered a person. Since fetuses are sentient at around 20 weeks, the interests of that fetus must be equally considered for from that point forward. But now comes a difficult question, what is the interest or desires of a 20 week or older fetus? Based on basic human nature, not feeling pain seems to be in the interest of the fetus. But for the fetus to avoid pain does not necessarily imply that the fetus cannot be aborted any time after 20 weeks. The use of anesthetics has been ongoing for years and can be used on a fetus to prevent any feeling of pain during the abortion. Therefore, equal consideration of interests allows abortions of fetuses at all stages of pregnancy. But the implications do not stop there. The basic right of equal consideration of interests also implies that murdering an infant or even adult would be considered permissible
Lastly, I will present how sentience, although an important factor in determining moral status, must also be combined with decency in determining whether an abortion is permissible; one who opts for a third trimester abortion without good reason fails at being a Minimally Decent Samaritan.
Moral status Moral status has always been assumed to apply to all human beings, referring to homo-sapiens specifically. However, why nearly all homo-sapiens are considered to have moral status has not been completely agreed upon yet. For the purposes of this paper, the word ‘person’ will be used to define someone or something who has moral status. The question being asked is whether animals have moral status or not. To determine whether animals have moral status, one must define what characteristics are necessary to be considered a person. One could make the argument that only homo-sapiens are considered persons, therefore no animals have moral status. The idea that a certain species should have its considerations considered for over those of another species is speciesism, which follows the same arbitrary thinking that racism and sexism undergo. The basic principle of equality is to …show more content…
For the following cases, we will assume sentience, the ability to feel, is necessary for one to have moral status and therefore an equal consideration of interests. Sentience implies that a fetus is not a person until the fetus has the ability to feel. Therefore, using contraception is in no means impermissible since the sperm and ovum alone are not sentient and therefore do not have any interests to consider. Sentience does not develop until around 20 weeks into the pregnancy, therefore any time before then the fetus is not considered a person. Since fetuses are sentient at around 20 weeks, the interests of that fetus must be equally considered for from that point forward. But now comes a difficult question, what is the interest or desires of a 20 week or older fetus? Based on basic human nature, not feeling pain seems to be in the interest of the fetus. But for the fetus to avoid pain does not necessarily imply that the fetus cannot be aborted any time after 20 weeks. The use of anesthetics has been ongoing for years and can be used on a fetus to prevent any feeling of pain during the abortion. Therefore, equal consideration of interests allows abortions of fetuses at all stages of pregnancy. But the implications do not stop there. The basic right of equal consideration of interests also implies that murdering an infant or even adult would be considered permissible