Ethic Involved in the Partial

Ethic Involved in the Partial Birth Abortion Issues When a pregnant woman learns that her baby is dying inside her, and that might put her own live in the balance, even though that discovery wasn't made until her 8th month of pregnancy, is it ethical or moral for her to have an abortion? On the other hand, does the government (state, federal, regional or local) have the moral authority to tell the pregnant woman she can't have a late-term abortion even though she may die if she doesn't have that abortion? These issues and other relative to partial-birth (or late-term) abortions will be reviewed and critiqued in this paper.

Both sides of the issue will be presented. What was the Decision Scenario ethical problem in this case? Tammy Watts learned during her eighth month of pregnancy that her baby had trisomy 13, which is an abnormality in the chromosomal make up "that causes severe deformities" with no hope the child will be alive when it is born. Technically the procedure she asked to have performed was "intact dilation and extraction"; also known as the partial-birth abortion procedure.

Watts and other women that had partial-birth abortions due to life-and-death matters testified before Congress that they may have died if they had not gone through with the late term abortion.

One of the women who testified was Vikki Stella, who stated that "No women have these procedures for trivial reasons… they have them because it's their own choice." What was the Supreme Court's decision against partial-birth abortions based on? According to Professor Tim O'Brien (from Nova Southeastern University Law School) "The Court did acknowledge that women have a constitutional right to choose abortion," but the Court also asserted that the government "has a legitimate interest in protecting potential human life," O'Brien told Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) anchor Bob Abernethy.

Abernethy reminded O'Brien that the five justices in the majority are Roman Catholic; he asked O'Brien what the justices would say if they were asked about their religious ethics vis-a-vis this abortion issue. O'Brien replied, "I'm sure they would say that religion had nothing to do with it" that they were simply interpreting the Constitution. The reason many pro-choice leaders were upset with the Court's 2007 decision against partial-birth abortions is that a few years ago they "rejected a similar ban" on a 5-4 vote.

Of course, what O'Brien didn't say was that in the interim, George W. Bush appointed to conservatives to the High Court as two other justices retired. What are the competing ethical issues in this matter? Opposition to the Court's ethics: The court case in question was Gonzales vs. Carhart, 2007 and it was for all to see a purely political statement by the five Republicans (who also happen to be Roman Catholics) who represent the majority on the High Court G.W.

Bush, who was elected on the strength of a huge number of conservative Christians, placed two of the five majority members there, both (Catholics and Republicans) find abortion in any form contemptible. Meantime, the editorial writer in LifeEthics.org writes that "Morality alone is an insufficient justification for the government to intrude on the private lives of women and the clinical freedom of physicians" (LifeEthics.org, 2007).

The writer goes on to say the Court did not rule on a woman's right to have an abortion; they simply narrowed it down and said in all cases, partial-birth abortions are illegal. The editorial points out that their ruling "does not save a single fetus because physicians could instead use a standard D&E method" (LifeEthics.org).

It is interesting that the Court did not offer an exception to their rule; if they had been actually concerned about the life of a pregnant woman who may die due to the deformity of her unborn baby, they would have provided a corollary to their decision.

It would read something like, "Except in cases where the mother's life is threatened." But no, the Court was following their right wing political agenda and ruling against a late-term abortion, forgetting the possibility that a pregnant mother might die without a late-term abortion. Support for the Court's ethics: Gregory Koukl is in the dark as to why "so many mothers, doctors, senators, Members of Congress" accept partial-birth abortions ("…this barbaric practice"). Koukl asserts that a partial-birth abortion is "not really abortion; it's infanticide.

It's the killing of an innocent human child outside his mother's body, often solely because of the baby's handicap" (Stand to Reason). Koukl dips into the ethical realm when he explains that "Ethics makes a distinction between two kinds of slippery slopes. The 'casual slipper slope" is like a line of dominoes falling… an action that might be morally benign in itself, leads to something that's immoral, casting a shadow on the first" (Stand to Reason).

Nowhere in his essay does Koukl mention a woman's right to life if her unborn child is dead or dying and her life might be in jeopardy if the child is born. He is assuming every partial-birth abortion is done because the child might be retarded and mom just doesn't want to deal with it. He is flat wrong. What moral decision would I recommend? Meanwhile when John McCain and Barack Obama held the.