Abortion/Cloning/Genetic Enhancement/Euthanasia

The morality of abortion, cloning, genetic engineering, and euthanasia is a hotly disputed political and social problem around the world. Abortion or pregnancy terminology refers to a safe medical procedure that causes uterine contents to be expelled, either through medication or surgical intervention. The core aspect of abortion morality is whether or not features have a fundamental legal right to exist, or at least to claim a life. The most important debate centers on whether a fetus is potentially human and so requires protection. The paper provides an in-depth explanation of the moral and legal aspects of abortion, cloning, genetic enhancement, and euthanasia. According to deontological theory, a significant general and theoretical horizons regarding bioethics, it is unethical and morally wrong to have an abortion. The essence of humanity or human nature reinforced by a religious dimension is that every individual or human being is a form of divine creature. Therefore, every person should be given an opportunity to unconditionally enjoy his/her life which is a gift from God. Similarly, the Pope John Paul’s II Encyclical Evangelium Vitae (1995) avers that no one in any context can assert to have a right to directly put an end to the life an innocent person. In this case, Pope John Paul II believes that an individual is to be cherished and treated as a human being from the instant of conception hence direct or voluntary killing of an individual including a fetus is gravely immoral as it is against the Law of God written in every individual’s heart and cannot legitimize an act which is intrinsically illicit. Moreover, full significance of an individual is achieved in full stages as well as aspects of human life as Jesus is quoted saying “…I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly…” (Jn 10:10). Therefore, abortion is immorally permissible as the birth of child is viewed as the fulfilment and foundation of joy.

In addition, Marquis Don connotes that abortion is immoral because of the effect it has on the victim and not the victim’s relatives and friends as well as the murderer (4). Abortion deprives an individual the enjoyments, activities, and experiences one would have gone through if he/she was allowed to live. Therefore, taking away the enjoyments and experiences of others for the sake of one’s happiness is an expression of selfishness and self-centredness. In other words, killing deprives off an individual both valuable parts of his/her future which would have been part of their future personal life and what he/she could have come to value.

Lastly, Marquis in his journal of Philosophy reply: Killing, Abortion, Contraception holds the view that the perception that contraception is morally acceptable is the instinct that it is accepted even in those circumstances it accomplishes its resolution (Norcross 270). In his assumption, contraception harms the ovum and the sperm since it takes away valuable future of each thing it would have had on its own. Too many futures are lost as a result of the contraception between the sperm and an ovum because when taken separately, the sperm and ovum are things. If both are things, contraception deprives each one of the valuable future hence harming both the sperm and ovum as contraception in itself is not a thing. Basing the abortion argument on Marquis assumption, the formation of a fetus deprives the sperm and ovum their valuable future. In addition, a fetus, in this case is not a thing and since it harms the sperm and ovum’s existence into their original things, it is morally right to carry out an abortion. Marquis reply, therefore, upholds it is morally permissible to have an abortion.

Works Cited

Marquis, Don. "Why Abortion is Immoral." Journal of Philosophy, Vol 86, 1989, pp. 183-202.

Norcross, Alastair. "Killing, Abortion, and Contraception: A Reply to Marquis." The Journal of Philosophy, Vol 85, No.5, 1990, pp. 268-277.

Paulus PP. II, Ioannes. "The Holy See EVANGELIUM VITAE." pp. 1-92.