An Essay Of Two Abortion Arguments

Similarly, in the same way that the violinist is not entitled to the use of your kidneys, a child in a woman’s womb does not have a right to

This group of people also believes that pregnant women have the right to refuse to use their bodies for the growth of something they do not want. They see unwanted pregnancies as invasions of a woman's body.

Mary Anne Warren (p.195-196) points out the exceptional circumstances of pregnancy; where one human is entirely biologically reliant on another and where it is impossible for complete personhood rights to not be in conflict between the foetus and the mother. Consider the following case. A mother and an expecting mother both express an intent to kill their child or unborn child respectively. Services are available to take the postnatal children from their mother without affecting her body. Yet to protect the foetus, one would have to imprison the mother until birth, or worse, force a caesarean on her. Warren (193) points out that forced caesareans are not merely a hypothetical

298). This is an important point noted by Little as it exemplifies how women’s personal boundaries are restricted as a result of gestation. All of these points strongly support the fact that Little believes that it isn’t permissible for anyone to force the intimacy of gestation on any woman against her consent, because she too has a right to life, therefore the right to make her own decisions. If a woman believes that she is not fit to be a mother, she cannot financially support a child or that she simply does not want a child, then who is to say she must continue gestation— she cannot be pressured to change her mind.

Very quickly she states that in the case of rape it could be said that the mother has not born the foetus the right to the mother’s body. Then moving on she says that permission can be granted in an implied manner, such as engaging in intercourse while knowing that there is the potential for pregnancy, and due to the voluntary nature of this activity a foetus’ right to the mother’s body has been

By arguing that the fetus has rights, it is implied that the fetus has a right to be in its mother?s womb regardless of her consent. This is obviously false, considering the mother has only let it be there by some form of her authorization. A fetus does not invade a woman?s body against her will, there was an act that the mother took part in, willingly or not, which allowed for a condition in which her egg was fertilized and began to mutate into a larger clump of her cells in her body and subsequently formed a fetus. If the fetus exists in a woman?s body only by her permission, how could we argue that it has a right to be there against her will? We can?t. It would be

In disagreement many people say that one person?s right to life always outweighs another person?s right to autonomy. However Thomson?s argument makes a very interesting unwanted pregnancies resulting in permissible abortions. To counteract her claims I?m going to use a hypothetical situation as she did. Let?s say a mother gives birth to a set of conjoined twins. The twins grow up having a somewhat troublesome life considering the fact that neither one has the opportunity to achieve autonomy. Once they get older, lets say age 18, twin A obtains the information that twin B?s survival depends on the use of twin A?s vital organ?s. However twin A would survive if twin B was too be separated from him thus granting twin A his right to autonomy. It seems that it is obvious that it not permissible for twin A to kill twin B. The following argument shows a more concrete view of the situation. It is morally impermissible for twin A to kill twin B if he has the right to life and the right to twin A?s body. Twin B does have a right to life. Twin B prima facie has the right to twin A?s body. Therefore it is morally impermissible for twin A to kill twin B. In turn this would create the argument that abortion is not permissible even when the pregnancy is not voluntary.

When they are brought together to form a unique DNA with 46 chromosomes, human life begins (Zugibe, 2004). After the chromosomes are brought together, there is no turning back. The genetic code for a human life has been created, and every component that makes up a human life is present from that point on. A sperm and an egg cannot develop or continue to live apart from each other; when they are united, they are one being and can only continue to develop (Gargaro, 2002). Each woman also has this biological composition of 46 chromosomes, which shows that both an unborn child and a mother are human. If we are to give concern to the human life of a woman, then we must do the same for an unborn child. Banning abortion is not a way of forgetting about the significance of the woman’s life; instead, banning abortion is defending the significance of a new life not yet able to defend itself.

Abortion is the ending of pregnancy before birth and is morally wrong. An abortion results in the death of an embryo or a fetus. Abortion destroys the lives of helpless, innocent children and is illegal in many countries. By aborting these unborn infants, humans are hurting themselves; they are not allowing themselves to meet these new identities and unique personalities. Abortion is very simply wrong. Everyone is raised knowing the difference between right and wrong. Murder is wrong so why isn’t abortion? People argue that it is not murder since the fetus being destroyed is not living, breathing and moving. Why is it that if an infant is destroyed a month before the birth, there is no problem, but if

Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. Since 1973 abortion has been an important controversial issue within the United States. 1973 marks the year that the famous Rowe versus Wade case was decided before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that abortion be legal and available to all women. Legal abortions can be performed up until the sixteenth week of pregnancy, after sixteen weeks most doctors or clinics will not perform the procedure unless keeping the baby presents a medical risk to the mother. Even in these situations abortions are very risky after sixteen weeks.

It is a woman’s right to make decisions about her body. If she is the one that undergoes the stress that comes with childbirth, then it should be her right to ,and her right alone to decide whether or not she wants to go through it or not. Not doing so would violate her right to freedom of choice, as well as lead to unsafe abortions that could harm the mother (Nair, 2010). Another question is how could you kill a fetus or embryo when it is the same as a human being? Which begs the question, if the fetus is alive, then so are the eggs and sperm? How do you make the distinction?

The morality of induced abortion is one of the most controversial moral issues of our time. Abortion has grown to be one, if no the most, debated argument of modern times. In the following web-page, we will be discussing abortion in three of its major aspects: Public Opinion, Congress and Courts, and Interest groups.

Within society there is an unspoken yet unanimously accepted verity that acknowledges women as the sole decider in the outcome of their pregnancy. The prima facie of this argument is rooted in a collective recognition that women should have the right to decide what happens to their own bodies. This belief is universally protected under article 3 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights; stating that an individual’s right to life, liberty and personal security is recognised as a fundamental civil liberty. Therefore, the bodily autonomy of a women (and of any other person) is of unequivocal importance. However, what should happen when a woman wants to keep the baby and the male doesn’t?

Abortion is a serious topic that people have been debating about for years. Everywhere you turn the topic of abortion presents itself, on TV, in the newspapers, in books and magazines. It already has, and will continue to cause, controversy for years to come. As long as abortion remains legal, pro-life advocates will continue to protest what they believe to be these horrible acts of murder.

I think women's rights are important after all if women couldn't chose whether or not to give birth it would be a slippery slope back to the middle ages or like the incident where Woman forced to give birth to stillborn in Texas because of 'Women's Health Laws' where Daniel Mahaffey and his wife Taylor pregnancy nightmare could have been avoided. His wife was 20 weeks pregnant in a seemingly smooth pregnancy when a serious complication arose—her cervix began prematurely dilating. Emergency measures at the hospital were taken but to no avail. There was nothing that could be done to save the 20-week-old fetus.The only humane thing to do at that point would be to pop the sack, and let little Fox come into this world too early to survive outside.However, thanks to Texas' frankly inhumane and cruel "Women's Health Laws", this wasn't an option.He still had a heart beat, which they were forced to listen to.Because of this, and his age, any attempts to induce labor would be considered a late-term abortion even though he had no chance of surviving. Daniel Mahaffey spoke about being forced to allow the labor to progress at home.The Mahaffeys were sent home to wait for their baby to die or for Taylor’s labor to progress. “We cried ourselves to sleep, waiting for him to come,” Daniel said in an interview with The Daily Beast.They prayed conflicting