I disagree with all of these points. It might be the mother 's individual right to decide if she wants an abortion, but what about the individual rights of the unborn child? People can 't use their own rights to take away the rights of others. When people say that it 's not a person that their killing, just a clump of cells, they are being extremely naive. It might not be a formed human yet, but it will be.
Race also plays into differing situations. A white woman would be given more options while a Black women would most likely be met with criticism due to stereotypes and controlling images of Black women having a lot of kids and being “welfare queens”. White women receiving abortions are the “good” kind of abortions because as disclosed in The Only Good Abortion is My Abortion, the health and life of the mother is in question. With other women of less fortunate financial situations and have the stereotypes attached to them, their abortions are bad because the women receiving them are “Jezebels” who can not seem to keep their legs
They believe that the Planned Parenthood clinic is immoral and has even been called a “scandal-plagued organization” by Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA), because of their “lack of compassion towards women and unborn children.” Congress claims that there will be no reduction to the funding of women’s health, only that it will go to a clinic that does not provide abortion services. The problem with this new plan is that many low-income women rely on Planned Parenthood for most of their healthcare services, and defunding the clinic would leave these women with no service. Although Republican congressmen claim that there are 9,000 other clinics around the country that provide women’s healthcare without providing abortions, they are still diminishing the amount of services that women have around the country. Not to mention that abortion is a basic and essential health need for women all around the world. Lawmakers are trying to regulate women’s bodies, and in turn, giving dead bodies more rights to their body than to pregnant women.
They may also argue that late-term abortion causes more stress and emotions on the mother. Or that it can cause depression, anxiety, PTSD and insomnia or disturbing dreams. Little do they know that it is not scientifically proven that those things are caused by late-term abortion. The effects of late-term abortion are depression and anxiety, but the rest of the “effects” can be caused by factors from the mother’s past traumatic experiences (APA.org). That being said, the effects of late-term abortion are blown far out of proportion in just another effort of scaring young women away from making their own decisions about their own uterus’.
Thomson could argue against my theory of the wrongness of abortion in all cases. She could argue with the following. Abortion is only wrong if the fetus is deemed a person, and there is no way to determine if the fetus is or is not a person than it comes down to opinion. That being said, the mother does not have the right to end her child’s (fetuses) life. Even though a person has the potential to change the world it doesn’t mean someone else won’t.
The social argument involves her having an abortion to maintain the status quo and saving her face in the society whilst the moral argument represents her religious views about abortions. She unsuccessfully tried to get abortion pills from the pharmacist but in the end, she committed the abortion after receiving abortion drugs illegally from the alleys at an exorbitant price. The abortion constitutes a moral question because it definitely affect the wellbeing of the unborn child. Also, it presents a moral puzzle because the actions of the mother(abortions) affects the unborn child negatively by either causing some deformity and disability to the unborn child or
Others believe that no child should come into this world unwanted. Nonetheless, these mothers don’t understand the extent to which an abortion can cause them serious and life-threatening physical and psychological damage. Physically, in the first few weeks after the abortion, it can cause diarrhea, vomiting and abdominal pain. But, it can lead to other more dangerous complications like, damage to the cervix, scarring of the uterine lining, perforation of the uterus and if abortion is done during the advanced stage of the pregnancy (i.e. After 4 months) or in unhygienic and unlawful conditions it can lead to death.
An abortion should never be an option in any case because it’s considered as murder, it causes pain to the person and baby during and after the procedure, and there are other choices to choose from including adoption. Instead of having an abortion, women can choose a more beneficial option, such as giving the baby up for adoption. When women decide to get an abortion, they don’t think about adoption because of the long process, even though it can help other families who can’t have children. For example “It’s logical that anti-abortion organizations seeking to prevent abortions and promote traditional family structures would aggressively promote adoption, but this connection is often overlooked…”(Joyce). Many women that get pregnant with an unwanted child usually look into having an abortion first rather than going through the long process of pregnancy and giving the baby up for adoption.
People that support abortion often cite the fact that abortion is permissible because a fetus has no rational capacities like children and adults do. This same way of thinking means that a fetus has no choice or ability to make decision when it comes to whose womb they inhabit as a result of failed contraception. Again, I am not arguing that abortion would not be morally permissible in the case of failed contraception but I am saying that there are key differences in intent and rational capacities between a malicious burglar and an unknowing fetus that weaken this analogy. Thomson also says that a burglar who breaks in should not have a right to stay in your house. While this is true, there are very few cases where a burglar will stay in your house if there intent is to steal something and get away.
In fact, it is proven that babies can feel pain during an abortion. I believe abortions should be outlawed, as they are unethical for many reasons. One of the reasons abortion should be illegal is because human life does not start once a person is born, nor when the heart starts beating, but at conception. After conception, the baby grows and develops for about nine months, but this does not mean the baby is any less human than anyone else. In addition, it has been proved repeatedly that human life starts at conception.
In addition, if you are robbing an unborn child of its future then how would this matter if the fetus lacks awareness? When someone is alive and is murdered they are currently living and are on track for a future. Marquis was not specific about which abortions are moral or abortions that occur because the mother’s life is at risk. While his basic argument was killing is wrong, including abortion, because it robs the person of their future he could have provided stronger stories to relate with his arguments. In Marquis argument every fetus has a future and if an abortion occurs, then the fetus is not given the opportunity to its future.
When the counter arguments of Pro-Choice reasoning, Pro-Life viewpoint, is analyzed there are multiple logical fallacies and false statements which are used which make their argument less valid. Firstly, the Pro-Life advocates use the texas sharpshooter fallacy when making the point that abortions cause women to have greater physiological damage later on in life. They use statistics that specifically support their argument without addressing any other specifics: “A 2008 peer-reviewed study published in the Scandinavian Journal of Public Health found that "Young adult women who undergo... abortion may be at increased risk for subsequent depression"” (Pro & Con Arguments). This is very misleading data because there is also ‘data’ which shows that women who don’t get abortions have physiological and emotional damage: “A Sep. 2013 peer-reviewed study comparing the mental health of women who received abortions to women denied abortions found that women who were denied abortions "felt more regret and anger" and "less relief and happiness" than women who had abortions” (Pro & Con Arguments). Since data can be used for both sides of the argument it makes this point completely invalid.
Inevitably, it would result in many more unplanned pregnancies which would equal more abortions. Really, if people want that number to go down they should be in favor of increasing the funding of Planned Parenthood. Supporting why the business should not be defunded since women would have the access to and be able to afford birth control and the number of abortions would go down, but if the government defunds them then women are not going to be able to get birth control to stop the unplanned pregnancy, which causes the abortions rise. Arguing to this the people wanting the defunding would say that the number of abortions would just continue to rise since Planned Parenthood if offering them. Which is untrue since they also offer contraception in which people could use to prevent unplanned pregnancies which lowers the abortion
This is why Democrats call it “women’s right to choose” and not “Republican’s right to deny” when it comes to abortion since it is about women specifically. Republicans have proposed partial birth abortions, which is a very high-risk procedure, and it is often not recommended by doctors or even accepted as an actual medical procedure. Democrats, however, reject the Republican Party’s “partial birth abortion” proposal, and they were successfully able to outlaw that proposal and make unconstitutional on several occasions. “Note: the term “partial birth abortion” does not exist in medicine” (1). This only gives validation to claims that Republicans are ignorant
The often religious Republicans usually favor a pro-life stance on this issue, meaning that they believe that the child is alive before they are out of the mother’s womb and to abort them should be tried like murder. Not all of those who are pro-life believe that an abortion could not be allowed very early on in the pregnancy. The Roe vs. Wade case decided that an abortion would be allowed in certain circumstances because of the right of privacy given in the Fourteenth Amendment. During the third trimester, the state could become more involved and would only allow an abortion if not doing so would endanger the woman’s health or life. The current ruling of Roe vs. Wade stands, although Trump wishes to contest the