How to use Abortion pills at Home

The ethical assessment of abortion is one of the most difficult problems in medical ethics, and only the most important positions and arguments can be briefly present below. The question about the beginning of human life must be distinguish from the question about the beginning of the moral worthiness of human life, since both require different answers:  To answer the first question, biological, empirically observable aspects are central, whereas the second one requires a rational justification using ethical arguments. At the center of the current bioethical debates or abortion pills is the question of the moral status of prenatal human life in this second sense.

The assessment of the termination of pregnancy is a difficult topic in terms of medical ethics and is particularly controversial in society. What is the moral status of human life before birth?

Conservative position

From a conservative point of view, the human embryo is accord the same moral status and inviolable right to life as adults, so abortion is generally morally inadmissible.

Extension arguments: With the help of extension arguments , anti-abortionists try to “extend” the maximum moral status of adults to human embryos. The only arbitrary and clearly identifiable turning point is the beginning of human life when egg and sperm cells fuse.

The continuity argument states that the development from the zygote to the adult human is continuous. According to the identity argument there is an identity between the fertilize egg cell and the adult human because they have the same individual human genome. In the potentiality argument , the potential of the fertilize egg cell is emphasis, i.e. the ability inherent in it to develop into a sensible and rational adult human being.

The weakness of these argumentation strategies lies in the seemingly effortless transition from biological facts to ethical judgments: With regard to the identity argument, the zygote can split up into several embryos until it is implant in the uterine lining. or you can consult at Get abortion pills in Dubai .An autonomous person with an individual biography is also fundamentally much more than genetic material.

Even with the potentiality and continuity arguments, the empirical facts are correct that the facilities for the further development of a person are already present in the embryo and that this development basically forms a continuous process.

Arguments of unavailability :

According to the unavailability thesis, every human life, independent of certain qualities and stages of development, is valuable in itself and absolutely worthy of moral protection. [2] In view of the “unavailability” or “holiness” of life one rejects any discussion about the “quality of life” or the “value” of a life. There is no reason for a selective abortion to “spare” the unborn life a life full of suffering, for example with serious illnesses or disabilities.

sanctity of life

The “sanctity of life” argument is often represent against a religious background: From the theological point of view, from conception on, humans are subject to a being create by God and subject to his special protection. “Holiness” or “dignity” of human life are often justify with the “likeness of God”. Such theological arguments can only convince religious people.

Fact:

In a secular context, the human dignity argument says that every human life – regardless of all differences in development status, abilities or origin – is accord the same dignity and thus the same moral status. Abortion pills is morally wrong because human embryos are members of the human species. If one justifies human dignity solely with reference to membership of the biological genus or “species” human, however, there is an ethically inadmissible species argument : [3]Just as arbitrarily, as racists in “racism” value the interests of members of “their own race” higher than the interests of members of other “races”, in “speciesism” one treats the members of the genus Homo sapiens preferentially and speaks only to people, not but for example to the animals a status of dignity and absolute moral worthiness of protection.

for further more information about abortion click here:

Radical liberal position in Abortion pills

From a radically liberal point of view, the unborn life is accord minimal or no moral status, so that abortion pills are generally ethically permissible and the pregnant woman’s right to self-determination is the only decisive factor.

Avoidance arguments: Radical liberal feminists try to “circumvent” the question of the moral status of the embryo by pointing out the special bodily and biographical unity of mother and embryo: As long as the child is in the mother’s womb, there is an “intrapersonal” (taking place in the person), not an “interpersonal” (interpersonal) conflict.

The argument against this circumvention argument is that, except in the case of rape, women are ethically responsible for their pregnancy and its consequences. If the argument of women’s right to self-determination about their bodies is exaggerate, this harbors the risk of a reduction in responsibility.

Ethically, it would be highly questionable if a woman decide to have an abortion, for example, because the pregnancy thwart her vacation plans. The reference to the asymmetry in the relationship to the embryo is not enough to deny it any moral status.

Moderate liberal position in Abortion pills

Today, a graduate status concept of a moderate liberal position is very popular, according to which the moral status of the embryo grows in the course of pregnancy: [6] The moral status and the dignity of human life are link to certain properties or abilities that only arise in the course of pregnancy can be acquire. The difficulty then is to justify which properties are ethically relevant.

Michael Lockwood and Hans-Martin Sass suggest brain life as a counterpart to the “brain death” criterion. However, since rudimentary brain activities that can be demonstrate from the 10th week of pregnancy onwards in no way enable the fetus to think and sensible self-determination, the ethical relevance of this developmental step is not evident.

Abortion pills

In contrast, the ability to feel that is present in the embryo from around the second trimester of pregnancy is clearly ethically relevant. However, the requirement of special moral consideration for sentient beings does not mean that they must be grant a right to life and absolute protection. Because it might be ethically permissible to kill them using a painless method.

Interest or personal arguments are base on the interest in continuing to live, which requires rationality, self-confidence and awareness of time. Since a child only develops an interest in continuing to live years after birth, the argument would have the counterintuitive consequence that not only abortions but also infanticide are ethically harmless.

Birth undoubtedly represents the most important step in the development of an independent human being, separate from the mother. This clearly recognizable turning point from unborn to born life changes the moral status considerably.

Prenatal diagnosis and prenatal selection

After various methods for prenatal detection of damage to the embryo were introduce a few decades ago, women can decide against the child base on a diagnose severe disability or illness.

The vast majority of the well over 100,000 abortions per year in Germany are non-selective terminations in which the characteristics of the future child play no role. [8] The following objections were raise against prenatal selection:

Discrimination argument: If one accepts disabilities or hereditary diseases as a reason for abortion pills, this represents discrimination against all born disable and sick people. Provide there is a considerable difference in the moral status of prenatal and born human life, the dignity, the right to care or the right to life of living sick or disable people are not affect .

Since everyone is able to differentiate between an un develop embryo and an adult, society should be able to put a stop to the creeping discrimination of people with disabilities.