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 a woman does not believe in God or a higher power, what justifies her right to an abortion? With the theory of individual relativism, it is up to the woman whether she believes the abortion is morally right or wrong, not the morals of society. Some might ask how a woman could possibly feel that it is a just decision. In cases where the woman is financially, emotionally, mentally, or physically unstable, she may feel that abortion is morally acceptable. After all, if she is not in the position to be able to support the child and give it a good life, what is the purpose of bringing the child into a miserable environment where it has no chance to thrive? Other instances where she may feel termination is the right way to go is cases where the child may have been conceived as the result of rape or by an abusive partner. Therefore, if a woman feels the child is wrongfully or illegally conceived, to her it would be wrong to bring the child into the world, and the philosophy of individual relativism would support her decision (Moore and Bruder 212, ?Post-Abortion Syndrome?.
On the same token, act ?utilitarianism would also support a woman?s right to choose, as the ?rightness of an act is determined by its effect on the general happiness? (Moore and Bruder 547). In 1989, the American Psychological Association conducted a study, led by US Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, to determine whether abortion hurts women physically or mentally harmed women, and it was found that not only did it have minimal impact on a woman?s mental health status, majority of women found it to be a relief to be rid of the pregnancy. This has been confirmed many times, recently so by a study at the University of California at Santa Barbara, which also showed that serious post abortion psychological stress effected less than one percent of women. So therefore, if abortion has no effect on women?s happiness, and relieves stress and anxiety, than this theory would support their right to abort the child (Cooper 38).
Two viewpoints that may distract some and cause them to believe abortion is immoral are natural law, or God?s word decides whether something is morally just, and ethical relativism, where society?s definition of right and wrong is the standard for women. According to natural law, we are never supposed to take life in which He has created, but the cosmological argument negates this, as we are unable to neither create nor destroy life. And with ethical relativism, society does not condone abortion universally; however, since abortion does not truly affect general happiness, by act-utilitarianism, abortion is still acceptable (Moore and Bruder 547-556, ?Post-Abortion Syndrome?).
If this philosophical view became the dominant view in today?s society, there would be less violence, as abortion clinics are common settings for protests, bombings, and shootings. And because of women not bringing children into broken homes, there would be no chance of these abused and neglected children turned out to be criminals. Also, it would put women more at ease with their decisions, therefore decreasing the risk of mental anguish even more (Cooper 38).
Because of cosmological argument, individual relativism, and act-utilitarianism, it is shown that abortion is not morally unacceptable, as we cannot destroy that which we did not create, and it is ultimately up to the woman whether this decision is acceptable to her and makes her happy.

Abortion 7.8 of 10 on the basis of 4339 Review.