Abortions have been a huge debate since the 1900s, and it has recently been brought up by the President of the United States of America, Donald Trump, who is pro-life or someone who is against abortions. There are two types of abortions in America according to Planned Parenthood- nonprofit organization centered around helping woman that are pregnant or looking to start a family- there are “in-clinic abortions and the abortion pill”; either one is the killing of an innocent human and are the reason why Abortions should be illegal. A great question to ask when doing this topic is when should abortions be accepted and when should they be stopped from happening?
Abortions should be illegal because it means the killing of another human, unless …show more content…
There are many doctors who have put this argument into a statement, saying “there is never a situation in law or in the ethical practice of medicine where a preborn child’s life if need be intentionally destroyed by procured abortion for the purpose of saving the life of the mother. A physician must do everything possible to save the lives of both his patient's, mother and child. he must never intend the death of either.” (Thompson 104). Basically the doctors have no right to automatically pick the mother's life over the other human involved. Direct abortion is when the mother has decided that abortion is the only option; it is the intentional killing of a baby. Indirect or the unintentional killing of a baby is when the doctor has to do something like remove a cancerous uterus from the pregnant woman. Indirect is justified under the “principle of double effect” (Thompson 105). In this situation the death of the pre-born child was an accident and is only caused because of an operation trying to save the mother. Alan Guttmacher, the former President of Planned Parenthood, which is according to the Free Dictionary by Farlex is an “organization that provides reproductive health care services.” Guttmacher made the statement that “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal disease such as cancer or leukemia, and if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save the life of the mother.” (Thompson 105
Abortions should be illegal because it means the killing of another human, unless …show more content…
There are many doctors who have put this argument into a statement, saying “there is never a situation in law or in the ethical practice of medicine where a preborn child’s life if need be intentionally destroyed by procured abortion for the purpose of saving the life of the mother. A physician must do everything possible to save the lives of both his patient's, mother and child. he must never intend the death of either.” (Thompson 104). Basically the doctors have no right to automatically pick the mother's life over the other human involved. Direct abortion is when the mother has decided that abortion is the only option; it is the intentional killing of a baby. Indirect or the unintentional killing of a baby is when the doctor has to do something like remove a cancerous uterus from the pregnant woman. Indirect is justified under the “principle of double effect” (Thompson 105). In this situation the death of the pre-born child was an accident and is only caused because of an operation trying to save the mother. Alan Guttmacher, the former President of Planned Parenthood, which is according to the Free Dictionary by Farlex is an “organization that provides reproductive health care services.” Guttmacher made the statement that “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal disease such as cancer or leukemia, and if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save the life of the mother.” (Thompson 105