Abortion and Euthanasia

Abortion and Euthanasia

In Western liberal democracies, abortion and euthanasia are two of the most controversial bioethical problems that have captivated the public’s attention. Personal values and ideas are firmly ingrained in the minds of individuals, so when these problems are brought up in public, they tend to generate highly emotional responses from both those who support them and those who oppose them. Most people agree that these are two polarizing topics that will never be settled in a way that pleases everyone involved. As a result, an extraordinarily sophisticated “moral politics” has been developed to win over partisan support for the opposing views. One of the most perplexing aspects of the abortion and euthanasia arguments is the idea that these are both morality policy’ concerns.

Get Your Custom Essay Written From Scratch
Are You Overwhelmed With Writing Assignments?
Give yourself a break and turn to our top writers. They’ll follow all the requirements to compose a premium-quality piece for you.
Order Now

The Tactics of the Worldwide Abortion and Euthanasia Death Movement

Abortion’s rationale requires euthanasia. Euthanasia’s reasoning necessitates abortion. Abortion and euthanasia are morally linked since they both assault a single value: the intrinsic dignity of every human being. Legally, euthanasia lurks below the surface wherever abortion has gained widespread public acceptance. For abortion and euthanasia, killing parents will be demanded by a society that accepts child murder as a legitimate option at some point in the future.

That Uruguay, the world’s abortion paradise (unless Japan shares that dubious title), offers it’s sick and old the worst legal protection; that suicide and death camps have been discussed in Scandinavia since the 1930s, and that euthanasia was widely discussed in Japanese universities a few years ago, and by English university professors more recently. It is no accident. “A startling element is the amount of freshly born infants found in vinyl bags in lockers at railroad stations,” a foreign observer observes of Japan, a country known for its widespread practice of abortion.

It is a well-organized, well-funded machine for abortion and euthanasia powered by powerful and ever-present mass media. Two-thirds of the deliverance live in nations that have either repealed or reduced their historic prohibition on abortion. Abortion and euthanasia may be the first target of the campaign. Because of their ideas about “devoid of value,” “not worth living,” and “totally worthless human beings,” the medical, legal, and intellectual forefathers of Hitler’s Germany laid the groundwork for the institutionalized murder by the following generation of professionals. The unborn have been the first target of the movement in more recent times. In both cases, the chimney and the suction curette remove a fetus from the womb. It is an appalling analogy.

Propagandizing for Abortion and Euthanasia

There is an adage that history does not make abrupt shifts. However, this idea may be questioned in light of the media’s ability to shape public opinion. In the hands of a devoted organization, this kind of power has the potential to shape the world around it. An individual agreement must be artificially obtained through depth psychology since he will not do it of his own accord. Jacques Ellul has stated that the trend toward psychological collectivization is the sine qua non of technological action. “However, the intention to assent must appear to be spontaneous.” The four Ms of money, media, manpower, and manipulation play a role in pro-abortion-euthanasia propaganda.

Money-Individuals, groups, foundations, government agencies, the media (Playboy magazine, for example), and contraception- and abortion-related product manufacturers provide funding. International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), for instance, provides free vacuum curettage devices to Latin American medical facilities, ostensibly for “legitimate D & C’s” in countries where abortion is outlawed. It provides education on abortion and euthanasia.

Mass Media- Television, radio, and the press support the abortion-euthanasia movement and give it extensive attention while suppressing pro-life content. Several collegiate newspapers, notably the St. Cloud State Chronic/e in Minnesota, have adopted a similar stance. One American group embedded propaganda for abortion and euthanasia in a popular television comedy series by offering a cash award for the best population control-themed screenplay.

Manpower- Recruitment of personnel occurs at both the grassroots and professional levels. Importa, three global movements—liberation, women’s sexual revolution, and population control—have embraced abortion as a fundamental tool for achieving their respective objectives.

Manipulation- Abortion and euthanasia lobbying has a long history of influencing people’s thoughts and behaviors. First and first, let me clarify that I do not consider legitimate techniques of persuasion such as appealing to reason and real human feeling to be manipulation (as distinguished from emotionalism)

Abortion has been framed as a religious (Catholic) rather than a public morals problem, which has proven to be a highly effective strategy. Abortion advocates insinuate, in an overtly biased manner, that Catholics cannot oppose the practice of abortion for any valid reason. Pro-life Catholicism When groups like “Catholics for Abortion,” “Catholics for Free Choice,” and “Catholics for Life” are formed, they are covered with joy. This network of abortion referral services with titles like “Clergy Consultation Services” exists because abortionists put on a religious veneer to their own businesses when it suits their purposes. My state’s leading pro-abortion group has adopted a new moniker, mora, after operating under a different moniker for years.

Public opinion surveys are used to shape, rather than to reflect, public sentiments.

The pollsters frequently fabricate changes in public opinion by phrasing questions in a way that suggests an answer favorable to the cause. During pivotal moments in the American abortion and euthanasia debate, Gallup would release a survey that indicated a shift in public opinion. The first three surveys all posed the same questions. The questions were reworded. It was published as if the results had come from the original questions. Of course, word of the report spread across the little towns. Abortionists use the art of language to influence public opinion while stifling critical thinking.

The Moral Politics of Abortion and Euthanasia

Morality policy 1 for Abortion and Euthanasia

Abortion and euthanasia, like many other moral policy issues (gay marriage, stem cell research), are highly divisive and difficult for a polity to compromise on (the issues quickly elicit intense persona), are widely salient with nearly everyone having an opinion, and are not amenable to compromise (the issues tend to involve polarized views and intractable disagreements). Whether or if abortion and euthanasia become official public policy will also be heavily influenced by public opinion, as is the case with many other morality-related topics.

Pro-abortion politicians’ ultimate goal has always been to get the public on board with the idea that abortion should be legalized as a matter of public policy. Pro-euthanasia politicians also aim to get the general public on board with the idea that it is acceptable as a public policy. There is a lot of debate about how health professional groups (including nursing) should position themselves concerning these political issues. We hope that after this chapter, nurses will better understand how to navigate these political waters and choose how best to participate in the debates these topics continue to arouse.

Moral politics 2 on Abortion and Euthanasia

When it comes to the politics of abortion and euthanasia, it’s all about who gets what (e.g., abortion as a medical regimen in preference to other options like adoption or ectogenesis; euthanasia as a medical regimen in preference to other medical regimens like palliative care or terminal sedation, etc.), how resources and people are organized (e.g., providing abortion/euthanasia services, which could include public and private hospital resources) (e.g., the patient in consultation with his or her attending physician). Politicians advocating for both abortion and euthanasia are primarily concerned with establishing safety laws and institutions for implementing those laws, which is the fundamental goal of both abortion and euthanasia.

Euthanasia and newborn infants

Sometimes, a child’s birth defects are so severe that it’s preferable to end the child’s life.

To legally execute late-term abortions and end the lives of newborn newborns, doctors must meet the following due care requirements:

  • According to medical consensus, the child’s pain is unimaginable and unlikely to improve. As a result, discontinuing therapy was an appropriate choice. No ambiguity in the diagnosis or prognosis is acceptable.
  • The physician and the parents must be satisfied that there is no feasible alternative approach given the child’s circumstances.
  • The parents must have given their consent for the termination of life;
  • The parents must have been fully informed of the diagnosis and prognosis;
  • At least one other independent physician must have examined the child and given a written opinion on compliance with the due care criteria listed above
  • The termination must be performed with all due care.

Late-term Abortion

Up to the 24th week of pregnancy, the Dutch Termination of Pregnancy Act permits abortions. At this point, the fetus can survive outside of the womb. Abstinence from the Termination of Pregnancy Act applies to late-term abortions performed after the 24th week of a woman’s pregnancy. Doctors are responsible for bringing these cases to the attention of the appropriate committee to prevent wrong Abortion and Euthanasia.

Late-term abortions may be performed only in exceptional circumstances. The following due care criteria apply:

  • The unborn child must be suffering from a severe condition that doctors fear attempting to heal after birth will be in vain. No ambiguity in the diagnosis or prognosis is acceptable.
  • The woman must explicitly request that the pregnancy be terminated because of the physical or emotional pain she is experiencing.
  • The physician must have provided the parents with a complete explanation of the diagnosis and prognosis. It implies that the physician and the parents must be satisfied that there is no feasible alternative approach given the child’s situation.
  • The unborn child must be suffering or expected to suffer following its birth, with little chance of improvement.
  • It is necessary that at least one other physician, who is not connected to the family, has examined the child and written an opinion on whether or not the child has received the recommended level of care.
  • A safe and humane way must be found to end the pregnancy.