Abortion Is Immoral Creative Writing Assignment Paper (Essay Sample)

Abortion Is Immoral
Name
Institution
Abortion Is Immoral
Introduction
The fact that abortion, with minor exclusions, is earnestly immoral lacks the immense support it deserves from most philosophical works of the recent times. Shockingly, many shrewd philosophers in connection with secular schools of higher learning conclude that the anti-abortion stand is generally a result of misguided philosophical arguments. Others consider the anti-abortion stand as a mere sign of irrational religion doctrines. Therefore, the main purpose of this paper is to prepare an argumentative essay on the fact that abortion, excluding some rare scenarios, is seriously immoral. This paper will establish on the wrongness of abortion which is equated to killing a human being.
I will start by stating the reason why I do not consider ‘all’ abortion as being immoral. I included exceptions in my discussion to minimize on certain scenarios whose ethical analysis appeared as a detailed and controversial matter for sound-minded opponents of abortion. For instance, abortion within the first 14 days of conception before the cells grown into a human embryo, or abortion after rape. Moreover, I included some exceptions of instances where abortion is permissible; for example, abortion if a fetus is anencephalic or when the continuation of the pregnancy poses life threats to the pregnant woman. Therefore, whenever I condemn abortion in this paper, the reader should put in mind this exceptional cases.
What I mean by the term ‘abortion’ is any deed done by or on a pregnant woman and is aimed at ending the life of a fetus or embryo, so as to favor the woman’s other needs. On the other hand, a fetus refers to a growing human being inside a woman’s uterus from conception to birth. There exist several symmetries that arise following the major opinions on either side of the abortion argument, which clearly explains why the debate on this social problem has remained intractable. My main anti-abortion premise is that a fetus is both alive and human. All human beings have the right to life by law; hence, fetuses have a definite right to life too. It is true that each and every female being have the right to control their own body; although, the right to an individual’s life overpowers a woman’s right to control their own body; thus, abortion is immoral.
Does A Fetus Have the Right to Life?
This is a very important question for this discussion as it will help determine whether all abortion can be morally permissible. The answer to this question is fully dependent on whether a person supports or opposes abortion. As for the opponents of abortion, we will look all over for the most inclusive definition of what life is, and make sure the explanation is inclusive of a fetus. On the contrary, supporters who claim that abortion is morally acceptable will strive to get a plausible and narrow definition of a human being’s right to life and make sure that a fetus is not included in the explanation.
Opponents of abortion, myself included, believe that every human being regardless of their age, religion, gender, or race have an equal right to life. So, since the fetuses under scrutiny belong to the human species, they should be regarded to as human beings. For this reason, the syllogism clearly indicates that a growing fetus has the right to life, which is seemingly deductive. However, on the contrary, supporters of abortion claim that fetuses do not possess any communication capacities in complex manners and are also not rational, which is a basic concept that defines a person. Thus, they deduce from this that no fetus is human. This argument is neither sound nor is it cogent. They go further by claiming that since no fetus has a right to life, it is, therefore, a female’s right to govern her own self and body and do with it as she pleases, generating a forced right to the social problem.
This major controversy puts an individual on crossroads regarding which syllogism they should choose. Generally, the anti-abortion syllogism is usually on the receiving end as it faces numerous critiques on its core premise; that is, the argument that anything that is bio-humanoid has the right to life. This fact has a questionable scope as the class of things which are bio-humanoid is too broad; for instance, it includes human cancer cells which are deprived of their right to life but are biologically humanoid in nature. However, I regard this a vague counter-argument pitched for the purpose of nothing more than a debate. As for the case of those supporting abortion, their syllogism is prone to critiques on its premise; that is, only persons of the human species have a right to life. Similar to the anti-abortion syllogism, this premise is also subject to the problem of a broad and extensive scope. For instance, the word ‘person’ used cannot be used to refer to a mentally ill, retarded, or an infant, as they do not belong to in the same category. Despite the differences between the two sides, they both agree on one similar issue; that killing an individual is a wrongful crime. It is true that the human embryo killed in an abortion is a cause of a person’s premature death which is misfortune. This is immoral as it deprives a person their value and right to a future.
Objection and Response to Objection
Supporters of abortion strongly denounce the major premise of anti-abortionists that fetuses and human embryos have a right to life and choose to differentiate the right to life from the right to use another person’s body so as to stay alive. They argue that the right to life solemnly belongs to the woman carrying the child, while the fetus only...