마지막 논문이라 좀 길지만 초큼만 봐 주세요 전체 학점 30%나 먹고 들어가는 에세이임ㅜㅜ


=====================================================
Problem of Abortion, and Rights of a mother and a fetus

Jeong Hoon Lee


AK MODR 1730B
Course Director: Dr. Duff R. Waring
Word Count: 2010 words
Due Date: May 21st, 2009

Opposing the practice of abortion confronts us with two different moral criticisms. The primary criticism is if a fetus inside the mother's body is morally a human being; some people buy into the idea that fetus is a being which is not yet born in biological term, so accepting abortion as a murder is therefore hasty generalization. Second criticism is that even if the fetus is accepted as a human being, then what has to come first between the life of the mother whether it is physical or societal, and the future of a fetus. Come to think of it, these are two different unique values that cannot be measured, but the choice would be varied depend on how much one thinks it is more valuable. The practice of abortion applies to ethical, societal, religious, and institutional value simultaneously, and since each and everyone is unique, and pursues different sets of values, it is questionable if the solution for this debate for everyone is in fact exists. In this essay, I will not attempt to argue what is ought to be right or wrong, but to approach the abortion debate in terms of the moral standing of a fetus.

In order to debate the moral standing of a fetus, it is needed to clearly premised that a fetus is an actual human being. According to both religious and philosophical theories, it is believed that a fetus is a human being.

In Christianity, abortion is viewed as a murder. 'So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them...' （Genesis Chapter 1:27~28） from the Holy Bible suggests that the creation of life of human is connect to the God's work of creation from the very beginning, therefore sacred, and belong to the God from the beginning to the end. It sees the interaction of egg and sperm itself is a starting point of life. In philosophical studies also portray that a fetus is an existence which carries potentials to form personality, dignity and value, therefore the rights of a fetus need to be protected regardless of whether a fetus recognizes it.

If fetus is not a human, then where do we draw a line of life between a fetus and a new-born baby? Is it really a revolutionary transformation when the location of a fetus （inside/outside of the womb） is changed? Or is it the undeveloped functions of organs of a fetus make her not a human? If so, a person with damaged lungs and depends her life on artificial respirator and spend most of the time on the bed would not be counted as a human being, and that is nonsense. Therefore, a fetus is ought to be treated as a human being despite of the place where it exists, and no matter how her body functions.

Vitalists argue that a fetus is a human who has a right to life like any other human beings some point before birth, and from that on abortion is an unforgiveable murder on normal status, therefore abortion is ought to be forbidden because it violates a person's natural rights and future. They try to justify their arguments by asserting several values.
One: they have individual respects for the right to life.
Two: they have a sense of value of protecting the weak and underprivileged, preventing violation from the strong and offer enough opportunities to develop their potentials.
Three: there is a value for people not to be forced to take cruel and destructive choices by aiding them through organizations or regulations of the government.
And four: they suggest to protect moral values even if personal conflicts and pain get in its way.
People who oppose the abortion believe that the right to life has higher value than a self-choice of a female because the self-choice of individuals does not come absolute on rights of another person.

Even if a fetus has a right to life, it is arguable if abortion violates the right to life. On Judith Jarvis Thomson's essay, "A Defense of Abortion', it is argued that abortion does not violate the right to life of a fetus. Frances Kamm also supports the idea as well. However, those arguments contain several drawbacks, therefore insufficient to establish enough persuading power. Judith Jarvis Thomson first premises if a right to life is a right for some things, then a right to life is not a right to demand everything that is necessary in order to continue its survival. Secondly, she considers a right to life does not fall under the category of the right to not to be killed, but instead fall under the category of the right to not to be killed ‘unfairly’. Thomson argues that it is only unfair to have an abortion when a fetus has a right to use the body of the mother. Whether the mother allows the fetus to use her body, or the mother has to undergo the personal disadvantage of pregnancy initiatively and consciously by not preventing conception properly. However, just because the mother does not allow fetus to stay inside her body nor let the fetus to use it, it is highly doubtful for me to suppose that the fetus can never have that kind of right. The argument is one-sided, because I believe it is possible to joint rights on same object, and on account of natural connection between the fetus and the mother, there ought to be a reason to give the fetus a right to use the mother’s body.

Kamm divides active and passive killing. Passive killing does not generate new dangers, and person who faces death is already in danger. Letting a person die can be easier to justify than killing a person. However, the idea of the active killing is harder to justify than letting somebody get killed is barely necessary. Self-defense, accidents, expected but unintended deaths are examples that stain Kamm’s argument.

If it is believed murdering a baby is the worst thing a human can ever do, but do not feel a thing to erase a fetus in a mother's body, it is prima facie seriously wrong. But to think more in depth, it is debatable if we really have done our duty in order to protect dignity of human beings, just to let a fetus out to this tough world. I mean, can we dare state a person is alive in terms of biologic evidence alone. There is a biological death usually defined as cardiac arrest, but there is also death of social and humane life. Societal death has greater range of concept than biological death; apathy, aging, and isolation can be death in some ways. Since it is arguably impossible to define a girl who was raised by a wolf in a jungle is truly a person in our society, we ought not to define a person is truly alive just because she is breathing. For instance in England, there is dramatic increase rate of unmarried teenage mothers, and they continue to live day by day, drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, and even drugs. In this case, the problem is that would the babies who are born from those teenage mothers be guaranteed to enjoy human rights, rights to pursue happiness, and form good personalities. The question applies to seriously handicapped people or households which lack of conditions to raise a child. Of course, if the future generation （fetus）, accepts her life positively, and if it is impossible to make better condition to raise her anymore, it would be no problem to give birth at all. After all, most important principle is whether a fetus herself would prefer to be or not to be born, but we have no method to figure out her thought, therefore left yet unsolved.

My approach to the moral standing of a fetus has no implications on animal rights, since my essay is mainly focused in terms of moral and social standing in human dominated world. However, whether a fetus is considered as human or an animal, the degree of practice of abortion cannot be further justified. In account of Peter Singer’s essay, ‘All animals are equal’, he basically suggests that if the basic fundamental of equality is the principle of beneficial equality, this principle should also be applied to the ones that do not belong to human species. What it means is that the principle ought not to depend on one's ability and its form. Applying this very principle, we live in a world that we ought not to disturb or violate other people's rights just because they have lower standard of knowledge or appearance. However, that principle also contains the fact that we do not have right to violate animals with lower intelligence than us and ought not to ignore their benefits. When racists get into a conflict for profits, they put greater value to their own kinds, violating the fundamentals of equality. Likewise, when racists get into a conflict for profits with species that are not their kinds, they again violate the fundamentals of equality by valuing their benefits greater than others. They do not accept the suffering of a pig or a rat is the same degree of as humans suffer. If we believe it is morally wrong to put a baby in pain without sound reasons, then we ought to assume that is the same degree of wrongfulness to make species suffer without reasonable explanation, in order to not to become racists.

If my approach to the idea that a fetus is a moral human being and ought to be treated as a human being like any other human has been so far sound, then I can move to the next criticism: Whether to save the mother or the fetus. This is the only exception I have for the practice of abortion to be accepted over the view of the self-choice of individuals does not come absolute on rights of another person. Abortion in this case however, becomes closer meaning to self-defense instead of self-choice. Although the threatening by the fetus is seemingly unintended, it is obvious in the second and the third point of view that the fetus, who ought to share jointed rights of using the body of the mother, now invades the rights not only to possess it exclusively, but also to eliminate the co-owner, the mother. It is also uncertain that those children without mother would turn out to be worthy to our society. What I mean is that if the children suffer from lack of education, happiness and fail to form desirable personalities which are supposedly given by mothers, that would be good as dead from the birth in terms of death of social and humane life I explained earlier. Therefore, this decision is perhaps the best way for the fetus as well in the long run.

A life is a divine gift which cannot be disturbed by anyone. So I question to myself, if we can really dare to sentence who can live and who can die. Rather than just arguing on pieces of paper in a third-person point of view, I believe that it is up to the ones who would be most affected by the deaths of both the mother and the fetus.

=====================

젭라 사려주세요 내일까지 마감인걸 계속 미루고 미루다 이제야 후다닥 써버려서 엉성한것 같은데
그냥 훝어보고 눈에 띄는거라도 몇개 지적해주면 정말 감사하겠습니다