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. If we take away the woman’s right to chose, will we begin limiting her other rights also? Or, if we keep abortion legal, are we devaluing human life? There is no easy answer to these questions. Both sides present strong, logical arguments.
Sex Selection Abortion Should be Illegal According to Merriam Webster dictionary, the definition of abortion is the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus. In other words, if you do not want any children, then you can just simply “terminate” that from happening. However, are there truly any reasons why you should physically kill a “human being?” Within the United States, abortion is legal and is considered an “option” to future parents who choose not to keep the baby. According to the medical dictionary.com, the definition of sex selection abortion, which is also known as selective reduction, refers to choosing to abort a fetus for reasons such as the woman is carrying a fetus which likely will be born with some birth defect or impairment, or because the sex of the fetus is not preferred by the individual. Within the United States, terminating a fetus because it is a boy, a girl, or has some sort of impairment is also legal and considered an “option” to future parents who choose to not keep the baby.
In the simplest terms, abortion can be boiled down to two opposing sides. But before one can explore the sides to the argument, it must first be established exactly what abortion is defined as. Marquis states that abortion is any “action intended to bring about the death of a fetus for the sake of the woman who carries it,” (LaFollette 137). Those who argue for Pro-life state that abortion is immoral on the basis that the fetus is considered a human being from the moment conception. Notable philosophers like Marquis identify as pro-life because of their views of the personhood of the fetus while Warren identifies as pro-choice.
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.
Americans need to turn back to the teachings of the Bible and refrain from recreational sex. Abortion should not be an option for someone who takes pregnancy lightly. Abortion kills innocent babies who did not ask to be conceived and did nothing to deserve being aborted. Babies are precious gifts from God to be cherished and loved from the moment of their conception. If someone does not want a baby, she should refrain from sexual activity or use protection.
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.
A follower of Natural Law would object to euthanasia, chiefly for this reason. A follower of Natural Law would argue that the sanctity of life is important, building up on what St. Thomas Aquinas asserted- that all life is sacred. Euthanasia denies a person’s natural course of life and this takes away sacredness of life. Euthanasia, although it could be used to end a person’s suffering is not taking into account that God set people’s lives out to be a certain way and only he can take and give life. A doctor does not have the right to do this because he or she is not God and should not ‘play God’.
Despite the fact that both she and the fetus has the equal right to life, opponents of abortion would still consider it wrong to preform an abortion with reasons ranging from killing an innocent person is always wrong and is murder to one must always prefer letting a person die to killing a person. J.J. Thomson would respond to say that these reasons are all false if we consider that the mother is only preforming an abortion in order to save her own life and not for personal interests. Hence abortion should be considered morally permissible in such situations when the life of the mother is threatened by the fetus. In order to determine whether abortion is permissible in cases where the mother’s life is not in immediate danger, we should analyse whether the fetus truly has the right to live. Take for example, rape.
They would therefore promote the idea that as a foetus is a person from conception, it therefore has a right to live just like every person and this right is more important than the mother’s right to decide what happens to her body. Despite this, Roman Catholics do generally accept the doctrine of double effect in the event of an ectopic pregnancy where the foetus is in the fallopian tube as the intention is to save the mother’s life which is a good effect with the second bad effect being that the foetus dies. Therefore, Roman Catholics would teach that ending a human being’s life through abortion is intrinsically wrong except under the doctrine of double effect. On the other hand, someone who believed in the quality of life, such as an Act Utilitarian as opposed to the sanctity of life, which emphasises the nature of life or the conditions in which it is lived for both the mother and the foetus. For example, if it is known that the foetus will be born into a miserable life in which it is unloved or cannot be cared for, an Act Utilitarian would see this as sufficient grounds for an abortion but the opposite would mean that the abortion would be less justified.
It focuses on the intrinsic value of the action itself and whether or not it is inherently good or bad, meaning that when applied to abortion there is not much lenience as it directly breaks three of the primary precepts: those of preserving life and the innocent, proliferation of the species, and to a lesser extent, the education of children (by removing the potential for one). This, coupled with the deontological nature of moral law, means that when following it to the letter abortion is wrong. However, this can be challenged by the doctrine of double effect, the concept that an action that is morally bad may be allowed if its effect will outweigh the action in terms of goodness or moral gain. Aquinas observed “Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. Accordingly, the act of self-defence may have two effects: one, the saving of one's life; the other, the slaying of the aggressor.