Philosophy 133 - Abrtion

Douglas E. Jones

Philosophy 133

21 April 2005

Does a mother have the right to take the life of her unborn child, never giving it a chance to walk this earth and fulfill its God given purpose? Or is it God's will for that child to be taken at that time, to play an ever constant reminder to the mother of her past decisions, having God use that guilt or experience as a source to steer her life? We neither have the ability to create nor destroy life, as it is God who ultimately decides whether the person terminates that life. From a non-biblical standpoint, it is based on whether a woman finds it ethically right to terminate a pregnancy and what effect it would ultimately have on her happiness. Therefore, abortion is not philosophically incorrect. In this paper, we will discuss the cosmological argument, individual relativism, and act-utilitarianism, all as they pertain to abortion, and how natural law and ethical relativism cause opposition to these theories.

As humans, we cannot create nor destroy life, as nothing we do is of true free will. God is who dictates what comes into existence, and our actions, according to cosmological argument, are not self-caused. According to this argument, a person cannot kill what it didn't create because is it ultimately the creation of God, not us, and it is up to Him as to how long each of his creations are in existence for. In this light, abortion cannot be viewed as wrong, as it is God who leads a woman to the decision to terminate a pregnancy, part of his will and divine path for her and the unborn child (Moore and Bruder 346).

If