Therefore, abortion would not be a defiance against God. Another main point of the argument is over the woman's personal rights, versus the rights of the unborn child. Pro-choice activists maintain that regardless of the individual circumstances, women should have the right to chose whether or not to abort. The pregnancy and labor will affect only the woman's body, therefore it should be the woman's decision. Pro-life supporters, on the other hand, believe that the unborn child has the right to life, and that abortion unlawfully takes away that right.
In contrast, those on the Pro Choice side believe that abortion should be legal. They feel that individuals should have the right to choose what happens with their body. In addition, they argue that abortion is not murder due to the baby not being fully developed. I agree with Pro Life activists because they think that abortion should be considered murder. They consider a baby a human as soon as conception occurs.
Thomson, though, thinks that reasoning in this way is misguided, or at very best is incomplete. In light of this, she begins by conceding the issue of personhood to her opponent; she assumes, for purposes of argumentation, that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. She attempts to show that even if this concession is made, abortion is morally permissible in many
This individual has a fundamental right to life, which must be protected (“Pro & Con Arguments: “Should Abortion Be Legal?”” par. 2). To many the thought of killing an innocent unborn child as a form of contraceptive is wrong and inhumane. Since 1969, the CDC requests information from health agencies to do surveillance on the number and characteristics of women who legally abort a child (Pazol; pg. 1).
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.
Jasmine Roberts Abortion: Murder or Choice? Abortion is commonly defined as “the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy” (Mohammadi). Abortion is a very controversial topic when dealing with religion, the government, or just your everyday person. This topic has been a great cause of debate in recent years because it causes people to wonder about their morals, values, and religious views. “According to religious advocates, abortion is murder” (Mohammadi).
In Gay-Williams’ paper “The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia” he concludes that euthanasia is morally wrong. He arrives at this conclusion on the basis that euthanasia is against our nature, it against our self-interests, and that the practice of euthanasia could corrupt doctors and nurses leading to cases of euthanasia where the patient may have been saved. First, Gay-Williams’ defines euthanasia in three parts. Euthanasia must be taking someone’s life. Another important aspect, the person who is being euthanized must be ill or injured in some way that recovery is not expected, such as a coma.
Well as been said before, abortion has to occur when researching human embryonic stem cells. Where abortion is such a hot topic that politicians are hesitant to take either side, the process of searching for the next big cure has encountered many problems. Scott Kusendorg, author of Moral Objections to Embryonic Stem Cell Research, clearly describes the hard truth about Embryonic stem cell research. "First, you must kill the embryo to harvest its stem cells. If the embryo is a human person, killing it to benefit others is a clear-cut evil.