In the modern world, one of the most debatable dilemmas is the permissibility of abortion. The bioethical problem of abortion is the justification of the practice of interference in a person’s life at the stage of intrauterine development. In some countries, this problem has become so acute that it has caused a fierce confrontation in society. Despite the conflicting approaches to solving the moral and ethical dilemma of abortion, experts agree that it is possible to reduce the severity of the problem with the help of more excellent sexual education of the population.
When dealing with ethical issues related to the artificial termination of pregnancy, there are two main approaches. The dilemma about the inadmissibility of abortion is resolved only by religious denominations: they all are opposed to abortion. Women’s rights advocates support the right to abortion as they consider it a general surgical operation (Kaufman & Kasdan, 2021). All women in the world might be affected by the solution to this dilemma. The government owns the problem, and they are also the main stakeholders, as the legalization of abortion hinders the growth of the birth rate. The field of abortion has long been an area of highly profitable business, so the second stakeholders are doctors who incline patients to abortion. Indirect stakeholders are adherents of fetal therapy (treatment with the help of human embryo body parts). My role in solving this dilemma may be in participating in actions related to this issue. In general, society’s attitude and the state of abortion depend on life’s social conditions and the population’s size.
In no historical period has there been a clear answer to the abortion dilemma. Aristotle stated that if children are born in marriage contrary to expectation, the fetus may be expelled. On the other hand, Cicero believed that a woman should be punished for doing that (Kaufman & Kasdan, 2021). A global trend in recent decades is the liberalization of legislation on abortion. However, the problem of artificial termination of pregnancy does not become more unambiguous.
Within the framework of the UN Sustainable Development Goals and 5P, some progress has been made in gender equality. Goal 5 aims to eliminate discrimination against women, which will require more significant efforts, including expanding the range of treatment and health care options. Notably, such laws should also include the right to abortion (Gu, 2021). Providing women with access to this healthcare service will help to achieve this goal.
History shows that the anti-abortion judicial system leads to the growth of clandestine abortion clinics. Therefore, I adhere to the position that it is necessary to grant the right to terminate a pregnancy on socio-economic grounds. Pregnancy can occur for various reasons, including rape and domestic violence. In other situations, a woman maybe not ready for pregnancy due to her health condition (Alhassan, 2021). The experience of developed countries demonstrates that family planning and sexual education of the population significantly reduce abortions.
Abortion may be considered as a socio-cultural, moral, and legal dilemma. Opponents of the legality of abortion actively misinform society to restrict women’s access to the spectrum of reproductive solutions. Those who believe that abortion is the only way to preserve peace in the family do the same. Pressure, moral coercion, blackmail – all this deprives a woman of the right to choose, which every person in the world has the right to count on.
References
Alhassan, A. (2021). Factors associated with spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) among women in Ghana. International Journal of Anesthesia and Clinical Medicine, 9 (1), 1-6.
Gu, B. (2021). Family planning program under low fertility: Where to go. China Popular Development Studies, 13(4), 215–305.
Kaufman, R., & Kasdan, D. (2021). Human rights and abortion access for people living in poverty: Implications for the United States and globally. In Davis, M. F., Kjaerum, M., & Lyons, Morten (Eds.), Research handbook on human rights and poverty (pp. 122 – 150). Minnesota, US: Edward Elgar Publishing.