If we are sincerely committed to equality then the answer must be no. Demanding that she have the surgery would entail us to say that you have to give up your body to your unborn child. It is unacceptable to force a pregnant woman to undergo treatment. It is her fundamental right of freedom of choice and control over her own body and life. In fact if we force this woman to have the surgery it could compromise the sanctity of a woman’s body.
They should have the choice whether or not to put their bodies through pregnancy. Banning a woman the right to her own body is taking aways her
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.
Short Paper on A Defense of Abortion by J. J. Thomson In the article A Defense of Abortion, Judith Jarvis Thomson exposes the idea that fetuses are considered persons from the moment of conception and, therefore, they have the right to life. However, Thomson argues that abortion under certain circumstances can be morally permissible. Based on these ideas Thompson implemented thought experiments such as the analogies of the violinist and the “drifting seeds”, which doesn’t really give an adequate explanation for why abortion is sometimes permissible. Thus, based on my understanding of these analogies I believe that Thomson’s arguments are not convincing and, therefore, abortion should not be permissible. Thomson explains that the fetus is a person who has the right to life.
Women who chose to have control over their bodies should then exercise proper contraceptive practices or also partake in abstinence. The idealogical stance being that if you are not able or willing to support a child, then refraining from having sexual intercourse is absolutely necessary. Abstinence is the only way to completely prevent the need for abortion. Again, the abortion process is damaging psychologically and physically. Instead
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
These precepts were formed because Aquinas believed that they would help us reach our final telos, or purpose. He believed that this was to "do good and avoid evil". This theory is applicable to everyone as the primary precepts tend to be the foundations of every society, culture or religion. If one were to apply this theory to the modern day issue of abortion, we would see that there is many reason for a follower of Natural Law to believe that abortion is very wrong. Firstly, by abortion we mean the termination of a pregnancy by artificial means therefore meaning a procured abortion.
Wade ruled that women have the right to an abortion during the first 6 months of pregnancy, legalizing abortion as a result. The court ruled that abortion is a right under the U.S. Constitution and prohibiting abortion would violate the 14th Amendment (which protects against state actions to deny the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy). This law doesn’t see the baby as a human at all. This law makes it ok to abort a baby that has a heartbeat, legs, arms, and fingers. The unborn child deserves the rights that are given to all living humans.
In A Defense of Abortion, Judith Thomson defends her stance concerning the abortion debate, and attempts to explain why all abortion cases should not be considered morally impermissible. Thomson stakes her claim by focusing on three circumstances where she believes abortions to be allowable. She describes cases of pregnancy resulting from rape, pregnancy despite preventive methods being utilized, and pregnancy that will cause harm to the mother. In these cases, Thomson concentrates on what someone has the right to do versus what someone ought to do. Thomson creates three hypothetical analogies that further explain why an abortion is permissible for each case.
More precisely, she argues for the conclusion that abortion is sometimes permissible; she grants that there are scenarios in which obtaining an abortion would be immoral. What is especially novel is the manner in which Thomson constructs her argument. She begins the essay by pointing out that the debate over abortion seems to many people to hinge on whether or not the fetus is a person. Most feel that if we could only determine the answer to that puzzle, the implications for abortion would be clear; namely, that if fetuses are persons then abortions must be impermissible, and that if fetuses are not persons then abortions must be permissible. Thomson, though, thinks that reasoning in this way is misguided, or at very best is incomplete.