These people are called the pro-life activists. Supporters of both pro-life and pro-choice refer to religion as support for their side of the argument. Pro-life supporters claim that abortion is murder, and is therefore against God's will. However, pro-choice defenders argue that abortion is not murder since the fetus is not yet a fully formed human. Therefore, abortion would not be a defiance against God.
In fact if we force this woman to have the surgery it could compromise the sanctity of a woman’s body. This would bring up the whole debate of abortion. Having the fetus’s rights just as important if not more than the mother’s, could say that if you have an abortion or miscarriage that you could be charged with a criminal offence. In the interest of fairness and justice, she should not be forced to have the
On the other hand some people argued that late-term abortion should not be banned because it is necessary to terminate a fetus when the life of the woman is in danger as a result of complicated pregnancy; or when pregnancy result from incest or rape and the woman may be late in finding out that she is pregnant. Late-term abortion is also favored when the fetus genetic defect,
Those people who are not in favor of abortion has the choice to not abort a baby and to those who has different religious and moral beliefs, like we all do, should have the right to stand what they think is right and moral and should not have to live on the belief system of other people. If a woman feels and knows that her pregnancy is harmful for her and for the baby’s physical and mental health, and if she knows that the child will grow up in poor environment, she should have the choice to do what she thinks is right, to do what she wants, and to decide for herself. Abortion is something that needs to be decided based on a person’s own beliefs and no one has the right to decide this for someone else. Do some people know what it is like to be a young, goal oriented woman, having an entire great future, and then she is suddenly facing difficult decision of choosing her great future or having an unwanted child? You
Thomson explains that the fetus is a person who has the right to life. However, when the mother’s life is at risk, the idea of abortion can be considered morally permissible. In this scenario abortion is permissible due to the fact that we all have the right to protect our lives from any danger. This is what we call self-defense. Nevertheless, this is not the right term to justify this action, since there is no valid self-defense against someone who is innocent and unwilling to cause any harm.
Here we are in this so-called world of freedom but when we exercise that freedom, we become ridiculed for making a choice. I would rather end a pregnancy instead of bringing a child into a world that they are forced to struggle and go without ; to make a child suffer is a far worse act then dissolving the birth of an unborn/ undeveloped fetus. In Roe v. Wade, a landmark Supreme Court decision in 1973, stated that a woman and her doctor may freely decide to abort a pregnancy during the first trimester, state governments can restrict abortion access after the first trimester with laws intended to protect the woman's health, and abortion after fetal viability must be available if the woman's health or life are at risk. Abortion was allowed in the United States of America
Despite Natural Law forbidding abortion, there is a doctrine of double effect that can be implemented. If the mother’s life is threatened as a result of the pregnancy, for instance during an ectopic pregnancy, then the destruction of the fallopian tube would be acceptable. Here, the primary aim is not the terminate the pregnancy but to save the mother’s life. The secondary effect is that the embryo is destroyed. Here, abortion would be permissible even by Natural law followers, who believe in the sanctity of life.
According to Idziak, the principle of double effect, “the act itself must be morally good or neutral, only the good consequences of the act must be intended, the good effect must not be produced by means of the evil effect, and there must be some weighty evil for permitting the evil” (p.16). Abortion due to the fetus having an abnormality falls under this category. Giving the fetuses life guarantees death and suffering in so many areas. According to Idziak, “Aborting an abnormal fetus prevents suffering for the child…giving life to the fetus would cause more harm to it than denying it life through abortion. Because of the poor quality of life, the child would have if born, abortion can be seen as being in the best interest of the child” (p.
Sargun Kang Philosophy 120 Essay – Draft THE GOOD AND BAD SIDE OF ABORTION Judith Thompson’s virtually admits as much in her article. But since she has chosen to conduct her case by playing off a right to life against right to decide what happens in and to one’s body. It is convenient and appropriate to speak of rights for purposes and in contexts which I try to identify; it is most inconvenient and inappropriate when one is debating the moral permissibility of types of action such as abortions performed without desire to kill, which is type of action Thompson wishes to defend as morally permissible under most circumstances. In the article Thompson agrees that the prospect for drawing a line in the development
Pro-life supporters argue more on the fetus's rights than on reproductive rights. Pro-life supporters believe that the fetus or embryo is human even before birth and that it has the same rights to live as any other human being. Pro-life is generally associated with religious believers, which is where the commandment of “thou shall not murder” comes into play. Many pro-life supporters believe that “personhood” begins at implantation of the embryo and that it is morally wrong to end that life. Studies show that when a fetus is being aborted it does indeed feel pain.