No other person—not even her husband—has the right to dictate what she may do with her own body. That is a fundamental principle of freedom. There are many legitimate reasons why a rational woman might have an abortion—accidental pregnancy, rape, birth defects, danger to her health.
The issue here is the proper role for government. If a pregnant woman acts wantonly or capriciously, then she should be condemned morally—but not treated as a murderer.
If someone capriciously puts to death his cat or dog, that can well be reprehensible, even immoral, but it is not the province of the state to interfere.
If anti-abortionists object that an embryo has the genetic equipment of a human being, remember: Abortions are private affairs and often involve painfully difficult decisions with life-long consequences. But, tragically, the lives of the parents are completely ignored by the anti-abortionists.
Yet that is the essential issue. Being a parent is a profound responsibility—financial, psychological, moral—across decades. Raising a child demands time, effort, thought and money. To a woman who does not want it, this is a death sentence. Give up your life, liberty, property and the pursuit of your own happiness. You cannot be in favor of life and yet demand the sacrifice of an actual, living individual to a clump of tissue.
Anti-abortionists are not lovers of life—lovers of tissue, maybe. This is because, while deliberating this case, the Supreme Court failed to thoroughly perform its duties and, thus, its decision is unfounded. Due to this failure, the decision ought to be overturned, and abortion should be federally illegal until the court does its due diligence and produces a satisfactory and definitive ruling. It is important to keep in mind that every right claimed by one party implies that a separate party has a corresponding obligation to respect that right.
That is to say, if Fred has a right to private property, then Joe is obliged to keep off of it unless Fred gives him permission. However, Joe might object to this; he may insist that he too has rights that must be respected. If corresponding obligations always accompany rights, and these obligations are sometimes incompatible with the rights of other people , as is the case in the example of Fred and Joe, this gives rise to the problem of determining which right wins out in the end.
In the above example, since it is clearly impossible for both Fred and Joe to exercise the rights they are claiming at the same time, a judge must determine which of the two competing rights is more fundamental or deserving of respect. If it happens that the right to private property is more fundamental than the right to travel, the latter will be limited and Fred will be justified in keeping Joe off of his land.
According to legal philosopher Henry Shoe:. However, on the other side of the coin, pro-choice activists say no life exists and the woman has the right to choose in this case. According to Chief Justice Blackmun, who wrote the opinion of the court:. If this is true, then it certainly seems apparent that the findings of Roe v.
As can be seen, both of these arguments hinge on different assumptions regarding whether or not a fetus has a right to life. Unfortunately, this issue was never addressed during the deliberations of the Supreme Court during Roe v. It appears, then, that the Supreme Court did not perform its due diligence, which would have required a ruling about whether or not human beings in utero poses the same rights as other citizens. In conclusion, the question of abortion is a question of rights, which are claims made by individuals which often come into conflict with one another.
The appropriate way for a court to resolve these conflicts is by determining which rights are more fundamental than others and rule accordingly. As such, the Supreme Court did not consider all the relevant facts in deliberating Roe v.
This blog post is provided free of charge and we encourage you to use it for your research and writing. However, we do require that you cite it properly using the citation provided below in MLA format.
Ultius Blog, 24 Jul. Click here for more help with MLA citations. Argumentative Essay on Abortion: Click here for more help with APA citations.
Click here for more help with CMS citations.
Her life ambition; her views on motherhood, adultery, teen sex, abortion, children, homosexuality, marital sex, compulsory sterilization, the rights of immigrants & indigents, the handicapped, the mentally ill, blacks, the church, etc. - all information compiled from her own writings!
A woman’s right to abortion is rapidly being eroded by the proliferation of state laws banning certain types of abortions. ANTI-ABORTION “PRO-LIFE” MOVEMENT IS ANTI-LIFE by Carl D. Bradley The “pro-life” movement is not a defender of human life–it is, in fact, a profound enemy of actual human life and happiness.
Essay: Abortion – Prolife view Abortion, the termination of pregnancy before the fetus is capable of independent life, can either be spontaneous or induced. It is called “the knowing destruction of the life of an unborn child.” (Mass General Laws Chapter Section 12K) When abortion occurs spontaneously, it is called a miscarriage. Abortion: A Comparative Essay Abour Pro-life and Pro-choice - An issue that has flared up in today’s society, abortion is a highly debated topic that has sparked some of the most violent discussions.
Towards this end, abortion should not be carried out merely because it is difficult to come to an agreement whether the fetus has a right to live. Conclusion It is evident that the arguments fronted by pro-life activists outweigh those put forward by pro-abortionists. Abortion: Pro-Life and Pro-Choice Essay - Abortion is an issue which separates the American public, especially when it involves the death of children and women. When an abortion occurs, the medical doctor removes the fetus from the pregnant woman.