El directorio enciclopédico desde la Wikipedia.
The abortion debate refers to discussion and controversy surrounding the moral and legal status of abortion. The two main groups involved in the abortion debate are the pro-choice movement, which generally supports access to abortion and regards it as morally permissible, and the pro-life movement, which generally opposes access to abortion and regards it as morally wrong. Each movement has, with varying results, sought to influence public opinion and to attain legal support for its position. In Canada, for example, abortion is available on demand,[1] while in Nicaragua abortions are illegal.[2] In some cases, the abortion debate has led to the use of violence.
[edit] TerminologyMany of the terms used in the debate are seen as political framing: terms used to validate one's own stance while invalidating the opposition's. For example, the labels "pro-choice" and "pro-life" imply endorsement of widely held values such as liberty and freedom, while suggesting that the opposition must be "anti-choice" or "anti-life" (alternatively "pro-coercion" or "pro-death"). Such terms gloss over the underlying issue of which choice or life is being considered and whose choice or what kind of life is deemed most important. Appeals are often made in the abortion debate to the alleged "rights" of the fetus, pregnant woman or other parties. Such appeals can generate confusion if the type of rights is not specified (whether civil, natural, or otherwise), or if it is simply assumed that the right appealed to takes precedence over all other competing rights (an example of begging the question). The appropriate terms with which to designate the human organism prior to birth are also debated. The terms "embryo" and "fetus" are seen by pro-life advocates as dehumanizing; the terms "baby" and "unborn child" are seen by pro-choice advocates as emotionalized. Likewise, there is debate between use of the terms "woman" and "mother". [edit] Political debatePolitics refers to the processes, defined and limited through legal documents, by which decisions (laws) are made in governments. In politics, rights are the protections and privileges legally granted to citizens by the government. Regarding abortion law, the political debate usually surrounds a right to privacy, and when or how a government may regulate abortion. For example, there is abundant debate regarding the extent of abortion regulation. Some pro-choice advocates argue that it should be illegal for governments to regulate abortion any more than other medical practices.[3] Some pro-life advocates argue that governments should be permitted to regulate abortions after the 20th week,[4] viability,[5] or the second trimester.[6] Some want to regulate all abortions, starting from conception.[7] [edit] PrivacyTime has stated that the issue of bodily privacy is "the core" of the abortion debate.[8] In political terms, privacy can be understood as a condition in which one is not observed or disturbed by government.[9] Privacy, in relation to abortion, is defined as the ability of a woman to "decide what happens to her own body".[8] While governments are allowed to invade the privacy of their citizens in some cases, they are expected to protect privacy in all cases lacking a compelling state interest. Abortions are recognized as being private, but are criticized for involving the loss of human life. The pro-life position argues that abortion regulation is valid because the state interest in protecting prenatal life is compelling. The pro-choice position argues either that there is no state interest in regulating abortion, or that the woman's privacy is a more compelling interest. 
[edit] U.S. judicial involvementRoe v. Wade, which struck down state laws banning abortion in 1973, was the first of many cases that have defined abortion law in the United States. Since Roe, abortion has been legal throughout the country, but states have placed varying regulations on it, from requiring parental involvement in a minor's abortion to restricting late-term abortions. Critics of the Roe decision argue that it is an example of judicial activism and that it should be overturned so that abortion law can be decided by legislatures.[10] Justice Potter Stewart, who joined with the majority, viewed the Roe opinion as "legislative" and asked that more consideration be paid to state legislatures.[11] In response to an argument that the judiciary can "call the contending sides of national controversy to end their national division", Justice Antonin Scalia wrote:
Candidates competing for the Democratic nomination for the 2008 Presidential election cite Gonzales v. Carhart as judicial activism.[13] In upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, Carhart is the first judicial opinion upholding a legal barrier to a specific abortion procedure. 
[edit] Ethical debateEthics refers to "moral philosophy," or the study of values and the analysis of right and wrong. The ethical debate over abortion usually surrounds the issues of whether a fetus has rights, in particular a right to life, and whether the pregnant woman's rights over her own body justify abortion even if the fetus has a right to life. For many, there is a strong correlation between religion and abortion ethics. [edit] PersonhoodSome argue that abortion is morally wrong on the basis that a fetus is an innocent human being.[14] Others reject this position by drawing a distinction between human being and human person, arguing that while the fetus is innocent and biologically human, it is not a person with a right to life.[15] In support of this distinction, some propose a list of criteria as markers of personhood. For example, Mary Ann Warren suggests consciousness (at least the capacity to feel pain), reasoning, self motivation, the ability to communicate, and self-awareness.[16] According to Warren, a being need not exhibit all of these criteria to qualify as a person with a right to life, but if a being exhibits none of them (or perhaps only one), then it is certainly not a person. Warren concludes that as the fetus satisfies only one criterion, consciousness (and this only after it becomes susceptible to pain),[17] the fetus is not a person and abortion is therefore morally permissible. Other philosophers apply similar criteria, concluding that a fetus lacks a right to life because it lacks self-consciousness,[18] rationality,[19] and autonomy.[20] These lists diverge over precisely which features confer a right to life,[21] but tend to propose various developed psychological features not found in fetuses. Critics of this position typically argue that the proposed criteria for personhood would disqualify two classes of born human beings — reversibly comatose patients, and human infants — from having a right to life, since they, like fetuses, are not self-conscious, do not communicate, and so on.[22] Defenders of the proposed criteria may respond that the reversibly comatose do satisfy the relevant criteria because they "retain all their unconscious mental states".[23] Warren concedes that infants are not "persons" by her proposed criteria,[24] and on that basis she and others concede that infanticide could be morally acceptable under some circumstances (for example if the infant is severely disabled[25] or in order to save the lives of several other infants[26]). Critics may see such concessions as an indication that the right to life cannot be adequately defined by reference to developed psychological features. An alternative approach is to base personhood or the right to life on a being's natural or inherent capacities. On this approach, a being essentially has a right to life if it has a genetic propensity or natural capacity to develop the relevant psychological features; and, since human beings do have this natural capacity, they essentially have a right to life beginning at conception (or whenever they come into existence).[27] Critics of this position argue that mere genetic potential is not a plausible basis for respect (or for the right to life), and that basing a right to life on natural capacities would lead to the counterintuitive position that anencephalic infants, irreversibly comatose patients, and brain-dead patients kept alive on a medical ventilator, are all persons with a right to life.[28] 
[edit] Argument from uncertaintyAn argument exists that if there is uncertainty as to whether the fetus has a right to life, then having an abortion is equivalent to consciously taking the risk of killing another. According to this argument, if it is not known for certain whether something (such as the fetus) has a right to life, then it is reckless, and morally wrong, to treat that thing as if it lacks a right to life (for example by killing it).[29] David Boonin replies that if this kind of argument were correct, then the killing of nonhuman animals and plants would also be morally wrong, because (Boonin contends) it is not known for certain that such beings lack a right to life.[30] Boonin also argues that arguments from uncertainty fail because the mere fact that one might be mistaken in finding certain arguments persuasive (for example, arguments for the claim that the fetus lacks a right to life) does not mean that one should act contrary to those arguments or assume them to be mistaken.[31] [edit] DeprivationSome argue that abortion is morally wrong because it deprives the fetus of a valuable future.[32] On this account, killing an adult human being is wrong because it deprives the victim of a future like ours—a future containing highly valuable or desirable experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments.[33] If a being has such a future, then (according to the argument) killing that being would seriously harm it and hence would be seriously wrong.[34] But since a fetus does have such a future, the "overwhelming majority" of deliberate abortions are placed in the "same moral category" as killing an innocent adult human being.[35] Not all abortions are unjustified according to this argument: abortion would be justified if the same justification could be applied to killing an adult human. Criticism of this line of reasoning follows several threads. Some reject the argument on grounds relating to personal identity, holding that the fetus is not the same entity as the adult into which it will develop, and thus that the fetus does not have a "future like ours" in the required sense.[36] Others grant that the fetus has a future like ours, but argue that being deprived of this future is not a significant harm or a significant wrong to the fetus, because there are relatively few psychological connections (continuations of memory, belief, desire and the like) between the fetus as it is now and the adult into which it will develop.[37] Another criticism is that the argument creates inequalities in the wrongness of killing:[38] as the futures of some people (for example the young, bright and healthy) appear to be far more valuable or desirable than the futures of other people (for example the old, depressed and sick), the argument appears to entail that some killings are far more wrong than others, or that some people have a far stronger right to life than others—a conclusion that is taken to be counterintuitive or unacceptable. Finally, some argue that as gametes have a similar potential to the fetus, the argument would entail that contraception is as wrong as the killing of an adult human being—a conclusion that is similarly taken to be counterintuitive or unacceptable. 
[edit] Bodily rights
Some argue that even if the fetus has a right to life, abortion is morally permissible because a woman has a right to control her own body. The best known variant of this argument draws an analogy between forcing a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy and forcing a person's body to be used as a dialysis machine for another person suffering from kidney failure. It is argued that just as it would be permissible to "unplug" and thereby cause the death of the person who is using one's kidneys, so it is permissible to abort the fetus (who similarly, it is said, has no right to use one's body against one's will). Critics of this argument generally attempt to identify morally relevant disanalogies between abortion and the kidney failure scenario. For example, it is argued that the fetus is the woman's child as opposed to a mere stranger;[39] that abortion kills the fetus rather than merely letting it die;[40] and that in the case of pregnancy arising from voluntary intercourse, the woman has either tacitly consented to the fetus using her body,[41] or has a duty to allow it to use her body since she herself is responsible for its need to use her body.[42] Some writers defend the analogy against these objections, arguing that the alleged disanalogies are morally irrelevant or do not apply to abortion in the way critics have claimed.[43] [edit] See also[edit] Notes
[edit] References
[edit] External links
[edit] Pro-choice links[edit] Pro-life linksPágina espejo de la WikipediaDirectorio de Enlaces Directorio dmoz Directorio espejo dmoz Pedro Bernardo |
