Abortion Pro-Choice

Pro-choice is the right choice because everyone has a right to their opinions and beliefs, western society's values, morals and ethics. Furthermore, sometimes women find themselves in difficult situations where abortion is the only option." Abortion is also an issue of personal freedom. Who should make that choice? Should the government decide when you are going to have kids? Should religious leaders control your reproduction? Or should you decide it for yourself? I believe that reproduction is a personal right and that it is no one's business other than the parents to make that choice. If the mother makes the wrong choice, it's her wrong choice to make. That's what personal freedom is all about. it's the right to make your own mistakes and not have the government make the mistakes for you. As someone who supports choice, I also support a woman's right to have a baby as well as her right to not have one. I therefore favor programs that encourage adoption and make adoption easier so as to provide alternatives to expectant mothers. A woman shouldn't have to get an abortion in order to keep her job. So I'm with Henry Hyde and President Clinton on the Family Leave Law that was enacted. Pro-choice isn't the same as pro-abortion. It means choice to either have or not have children (Let's talk about Abortion). From there, being pro-choice is about being in control of personal freedom to choose a life's path, which could be positive or negative that will not affect anyone else butt those who are involved.

If These Walls Could Talk

In the movie, "If These Walls Could Talk," there were three women who were in unfortunate situations where having a child was not the best idea. Furthermore, this movie points out women should the right to carry to a baby or not because they are the ones who have to live with the consequences of the choice.

The compilation film if These Walls Could Talk consists of three short films that each deal with the controversial issue of abortion. Although each of the stories is set in a different decade, the unifying element (aside from the subject matter) is that all three transpire in the same house. The first story stars Demi Moore as the widow of a soldier killer in combat. She becomes pregnant and does not feel it would be morally appropriate to have the baby. Because it is the '50s, she must attempt to secure an illegal abortion. The second story, set in the '70s, stars Sissy Spacek as a mother of a struggling family. Having successfully raised four children on a meager income, Spacek's character must now decide if she should seek an abortion after finding out she is expecting a fifth. The final story takes place in the '90s. Anne Heche portrays a grad student who crosses protestors' picket lines in order to consult a doctor (Cher) about having an abortion (if These Walls Could Talk).

Opposition

People who argued that abortion is an act of violence against an innocent human being, want to educate others and show that it is at a great financial cost, which is no pay-off on the pro-life side. There is no billion dollar product to refill the coffer.furthermore, people who support abortion the most are growing rich off its continued availability while those who oppose abortion the most are losing money for their efforts (Abortion for profit).

The bible states the following about abortion, which clearly shows the bible chooses pro-life. In the bible, it states that women who became pregnant by their husbands, God was expected to do some kind of miracle related to the bitter water, creating a dramatic physical reaction if adultery had been committed. In the majority of cases of suspected adultery, there would be no pregnancy and therefore no child at risk" (Abortion in the Bible and Church History).

Furthermore, the biblical view of children is that they are a blessing from the Lord (Psalm 127:3-5). Society is treating children more and more as liabilities. We must learn to see them as God does - "He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing" (Deuteronomy 10:18). Furthermore, we must act toward them as God commands us to act (Abortion in the Bible and Church History). According to St. Thomas Aquinas, the nature of man is that if abortion was illegal, it would not stop the practice. In fact, it may increase. The best solution would be to teach people abortion is killing a living fetus, which is wrong.

Without disregarding the religious part of abortion, Don Marquis points out that it is not a moral issue, it is just the fact killing is wrong. Abortion is wrong no matter the circumstances according to Marquis. From there, it apparent that he feels the fetus is a living thing and for that reason, abortion would be killing, which is wrong.

In spite of the fact that Marquis does not rely on the notion of personhood, he shares a major assumption with those who do: whether or not abortion is wrong, in his view, depends on something about the fetus; it depends on "whether a fetus is the sort of being whose life it is seriously wrong to end." He believes the fetus is such a being, and he offers an analysis of why (Don Marquis: A Non-Religious Anti-Abortion Argument).

Counter argument

In the article, "a defense of abortion," it clearly states a woman right to say what happens to her body, meaning if she does not feel that she handle carrying a baby for nine months, she should be allow to get abortion. Carrying a baby for nine months can be very stressful on a woman's body and not anyone's else. Since it does not involve anyone else except the mother, it is her choice to give birth.

It sounds plausible. But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you -- we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you (Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion).

From there, in the article, "On the moral and legal status of abortion," it clearly states that a fetus cannot be considered to be a moral human being because it cannot think intelligently and morally. With that, it cannot have moral rights since it is not a moral human being, which morally abortion would not be wrong.

In answering the first question, we need not attempt a detailed consideration of the moral rights of organisms which are not developed enough, aware enough, intelligent enough, etc., to be considered people, but which resemble people in some respects. It does seem reasonable to suggest that the more like a person, in the relevant respects, a being is, the stronger is the case for regarding it as having a right…