Tags: Walmart Essays IntroductionRhetorical Analysis Essay SyntaxShort Essay On Financial CrisisItem Sythesis ListAssignment Of IncomeEssay On Superstitions And ScienceEssay Goal SettingDare Essay Format
Until they do, we need to focus on the more manageable and relevant question of how to regulate a medical service or procedure that is sought by millions of women.
Alternatively, attempting to induce a premature live birth that is not medically necessary, should a woman request this, would likely injure a viable fetus and endanger its postnatal health and life.
Because an abortion is a medical service, and not something a woman decides or does by herself, her right to decisional privacy in this matter is not absolute.
The individual or personal ethics question — on the moral acceptability of abortion — is not likely to generate a public consensus, given the current lack of agreement on many background issues.
It is well known that members of our society hold vastly different views about when personhood or a human life begins, about our moral obligations to our genetic offspring, or what kind of sexual acts are permissible. A pluralist, democratic society can accommodate a good amount of such disagreement.
Public debate on this question over the past few decades has been productive and illuminating. How should governments restrict or regulate the abortion services offered by medical professionals or facilities?
Because this is an issue about good medicine, we need to focus on health risks and outcomes instead of personal ethics.
In a liberal democracy, we don’t need to resolve many difficult questions of individual morality in order to have defensible public policies — policies that are justified by our commitment to democratic decision making, liberty and equality. ” suggest that entire groups of people that pursue activities necessary to securing their basic human needs are possibly morally compromised, and are thus insulting; they also encourage civic leaders and their constituents to take up rigid and extreme views based on their own personal convictions, and to be morally arrogant toward others who don’t share their views.
State officials who appeal to their own beliefs on questions of individual morality, in order to justify their policy decisions, are violating values more fundamental to our society. Raising these questions in the midst of heated public debate about access to abortion services or to civil marriage makes it seem as if we are hopelessly divided as a society in ways that render the policy questions irresolvable.
There is broad agreement that medical professionals and facilities should be able to offer services or remedies that are lifesaving and health-preserving for their patients, and they should be prohibited from doing so when the health risks of those services outweigh their health benefits.
Given what we now know about the safety of abortion procedures at different stages of pregnancy, and the risks posed by pregnancy and childbirth, what justifications can be offered for restricting abortion services?