Abortion

Introduction

When an individual requires to terminate a pregnancy, it is expected that the medical profession assists that person attain honest information. A widely accepted notion is that the public health sector endeavors for the best interests of societal members. This implies that it is easily given to advocating for pre-term abortions. In “Abortion and Public Health: Time for another Look” Stephen A. McCurdy (2016) audiences are invited to rethink positions on the contentious issue.

Summary

When persons seek to procure illegal or legal abortions, they seek for clinical medicine and public health professional to have it performed safely. According to McCurdy (2016) this gives a wrongful impression that such experts are inherently pro-abortion activists. The article provides profound history to the revelation that the institution referred to as Planned Parent was founded by a pro-eugenics and racist individual. To date, it remains the largest abortion services provider. It also provides that there has been widespread politicization of opinions and facts aimed at propagating cherished political goals. The resultant suppression, denials, as well as distortion of philosophical and scientific truths have led to the legal definition that fetus and embryo should not be considered as human beings (“Abortion”, n.d.).

The universal human value of reciprocity entails an individual or groups of persons treating others in a manner they would wish to be regarded. McCurdy (2016) underscores that public health professionals ascribe to this standpoint in that abortion simply robs a fetus of an independent life on the false precincts of underdeveloped cognitive abilities. The article denounces pro-choice ideologies as a fallacy and decries modern eugenics as the cause of social and demographic challenges facing countries like India and China. The article concludes by stating the professional respect for human rights while regrettably acknowledging that abortion is the leading cause for loss of life. It terms the Roe v. Wade as a human tragedy while also championing for society and governments to support women with unintended pregnancies to avoid abortion all together.

Response

The article underscores the call to high moral values. I appreciate the author’s nonpartisan approach to the long standing debate and standing by the ethical foundations of science which are deeply compassionate about human rights. It has admonished abortion relative to modern eugenics noting that it inadvertently results in lower quality of life for an entire society. I also agree that the Roe v. Wade decision heralded a grim period where facts were distorted in a manner that has made abortion the most life destroying practice to date. I hold the author as an ethically and morally astute public health profession whose insights should be widely circulated to eradicate the depressing ignorance that citizens bear relative to this particular debate agenda.

References

Abortion. (n.d.)“Abortion. Chapter 18 – Ethics Applied, 8.0”. St. Petersburg College.

McCurdy, S. A. (2016). Abortion and public health: Time for another look. The Linacre Quarterly, 83(1), 20–25. Retrieved on 9 March 2018 from http://doi.org/10.1080/00243639.2015.1133019