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 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
She argues that even if the fetus is a person, it doesn't simply follow that abortion is wrong. But she goes on to argue that even if the fetus is not a person, it doesn't follow that abortion is simply acceptable in all circumstances. She points out a characteristic feature of the abortion debate: foes of abortion point to supposed sufficient conditions of personhood that fetuses have; advocates of abortion rights point to supposed necessary conditions of personhood that fetuses lack. "These both presuppose that the concept of a person can be captured in a strait jacket of necessary and sufficient conditions." English claims, “person” is a cluster concept.
Mary Anne Warren, in her essay On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion, talks about one of Thomson’s analogies and refutes it. Warren believes that banning abortion would be unconstitutional, but disagrees with some of Thomson’s ideas on responsibility. Is Warrens discontent with Thomson grounded? Judith Thomson argues that an abortion is
Abortion: Summary Digest Some believe the sanctity of life is naturally determined by an inherent moral code, while others believe the value of life should be determined by personal choice. Despite the differences, there is no bigger quarrel amongst these views than the issue of abortion. The “pro-choice” perspective believes that any attempt at prohibiting abortion infringes on their natural rights. “Pro-life” advocates claim that there is not a fine line between the act of killing and abortion. In fact, they believe it is simply premeditated murder.
This means that it considers the act itself and, because it’s absolute, disregards the consequences of the action. It focuses on the intrinsic value of the act and whether it is internally good or not. Applying this to abortion it means that the act of abortion itself would be considered, not the consequences. Therefore abortion would always be wrong, as it doesn’t take into account the outcomes: such as a better life for the mother. Natural law may also disagree with the use of IVF, as it wouldn’t consider the possible outcome of new life created or health benefits from research with spare embryos.
Adoption in my opinion should just be illegal in every state because you are just taking a harmless baby's life for no reason, the baby didn't ask you to make it. If you know you that you don't want to have a baby you should make sure that you have a condom on, to be safe because you might have gotten lucky a few time's of having unprotected sex but it will eventually catch up with you and get you pregnant and get you in a situation that you don't wanna be in. I don't think someone at a young age wants to be in a situation like that so they don't have to make such a hard decision in your life, because the
I think you're pointing out an inconsistency in this discussion that is very valid. I agree entirely and this is why I do not hold that abortion should be allowed in those cases. This really demonstrates how important the question of the human rights of the child is because it compels us to certain conclusions. It removes from us the liberty of making ad hoc decisions based on our emotions. We must approach this in a disciplined way as a transcendent human rights issue.
Given that Susan did not necessarily plan to have a child at that stage in her life would not make it fair that it be put upon her. I strongly agree with Thomson’s view that the fact that she didn’t offer her body to have a child within her, she then has no obligation to keep the fetus alive. And for her to have an abortion may be a bit selfish and inconsiderate of the baby’s potential, but it would not be unjust for her to do so. In Tammy’s case, after having decided to keep the child, to decide to get an abortion so late into the pregnancy is in fact unjust. By doing so, she taking away the fetus’ life because it would be so inconvenient for her in the short run of her life.
The issue of abortion is a sensitive one, there are many things that need and should be considered when looking at abortion and weather it is right to do so. Perhaps the most important one is that everyone has a right to life. It is widely argued when an embryo becomes a person and when it is wrong to have an abortion. Mainly there are two groups that have views when looking at abortion; these are pro-life and pro-choice. A supporter of pro-life would say that the right to life is the most important factor as they feel that in no way under any circumstances should there ever be an abortion.