Abortion an ethical dilemma

Abortion An ethical dilemma raised in the cases under analysis is one of the mo st controversial in the medical practice. Bear in mind case it is possible to say that the decision accepted by the parents is well thoughts and ethically correct. The organs should be harvested because they could save lives for other babies needed them. The main problem of present day ethics is that it pays much attention to fatally ill patients instead of those lives can be save thanks to organs of mortally ill donors. As for me, it is more unethical to allow other babies to die or become disabled (cripples) because of high ethical morals preventing them to receive medical help. Is it ethical to remain inactive and do nothing to save the life of those babies who have a chance to live I suppose, it is the most unethical thing concerning the case with Teresa. It is said that Teresa was still alive and doctors needed to kill her in order to transplant organs, but at the same time they were aware of a fact that baby Teresa had no chance to survive because of anencephalic disorder. The problem is that it is impossible to accept the law and develop a single ethical rule suitable for all the cases. Every specific case should be discussed separately in accordance with the circumstances and patients’ health conditions. I agree it is unethical to use people as a mean but its more unethical to deprive other babies of a chance to survive because of speculative ethical arguments created by a group of people.
2. It is possible to assume that if we were killed before birth, the victim would still have been the same entity. If the harm is the same and the victim is the same, and the victim is no less innocent, then surely the deed is just as wrong. Therefore, the argument concludes, it would be just as wrong to kill us before birth as after birth. But there are some cases as Jodie and Mary conjoined twins. I share the opinion accepted by the court. The doctors should operate the twins to save one of them. I suppose that the position expressed by the parents is wrong. If doctors let nature "take its course’ there is no need for medical service at all. All scientific and medical innovations and discoveries become useless as well as medicine itself if we follow the concept of "God’s will". In this case we should take into account the goal of medical service which aims to relieve and safe life. To some extant, it is a play of words but the doctors wanted to save the life of Jodie and did not want to kill Mary as parents interpreted it. In this case, it was not a killing of Mary. I suppose it would be unethical allow both babies to die doing nothing to save Jodie, because ethics (and medicine as well) is aimed to save a "life" and not allow patient to "die".
3. On the other hand, life that does not fit into a mental pattern or criteria is worthless. Hence, to be valuable, life must be justified, i.e., its value is corresponding with the strength of its justifying argument. The farther of Tracy Latimer had no right to kill his daughter even if she was handicapped. He had no legal and moral right to commit this crime. From the ethical point of view it is an awful crime which has no excuse. Even if the parents were sick and tired of their handicapped baby they could institutionalize her to a medical establishment for such children to be free form her. The main principle against this killing is that Tracy Latimer was physically a mature human being. In this case, identity is strong in itself and in its further implications.
4. A mother should abort a parasitic twin fetus because it is nothing more than abnormality. If we cannot answer this question in a moral or ethical way focusing on functions, we must return to human nature or substance as the most basic grounds of the right itself. The case for abortion is then found to be fundamentally immoral. But it is unethical to force mother to born "a creature" which is not a human being. In reality, nobody will benefited from this new life: a mother will suffer all her life raising up a disabled creature, a parasitic twin will not become a society member able to work and lead an independent life. In this case, a fetus does not possess psychological characteristics and is not entitled to have full moral status, and should be aborted.
Taking into account case 2 and 3 it is possible to single out the main principle which allows to distinguish the degree of intervention. In the second case it was not a killing of a baby but an attempt to save the live of Jodie. If doctors did not intervene both twins would be dead. In the third case, there was no threat to Theresa’s life even if she was handicapped. It was the problem of her parents who became sick and tired of this baby and decided to kill her. Of course, it is a grief for parents to have such a baby but nobody allowed to kill another person because of his/her own priorities or benefits even if it can be justified by some circumstances. In order to avoid this problem, abortion is the only right decision for mother with parasitic twins.
References
1. Schwarz, S.D. The Moral Question of Abortion. Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1990.
2. http://freaks.monstrous.com/famous_freaks_gallery.htm
3. http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/pbaba2003s3.pdf
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/06/abortion.decision/index.html