I agree with Thomson’s example of a woman wanting to get an abortion to avoid a nuisance being “indecent”, but that is not up to me to decide. Being pro-choice means to be for any decision that someone wants to make regarding their pregnancy, and not for a decision as long as it doesn’t go against what I believe is right. Although in this case, I may not agree that that’s a viable reason to want to get an abortion, because it is not my business or my body, it is not my decision to make. I also know that if I were put in a position of accidentally getting pregnant and not knowing what to do, I would want to have the option to get an abortion, regardless of whether I do it or not. A person wanting to get an abortion may want one because they
…show more content…
This kind of argument puts a lot of the blame on the victim. If someone takes all the precautions in trying to prevent getting pregnant but still gets pregnant anyways, that shouldn’t be their fault. This kind of argument is similar to saying “if you don’t want to get in a car accident, don’t drive”, and can be used for any similar context. People have been having sex with no intention of having a baby since the beginning of time; it’s why people had mistresses, why brothels existed, why people pay for the company of sex workers. Someone should not be blamed and ridiculed and ostracized for doing what they want they do and having bad luck in the …show more content…
Although a fetus at this stage is fully formed and could be considered a child, depending on when someone considers a fetus a person, some people, upon hearing that the fetus is fatally impaired, may choose to have an abortion. This would an extremely difficult decision to make, as finding this information would happen around the 20-26-week mark, and by this time, the person pregnant would have already made the decision to have the child, but given the situation, chooses to have a late-term abortion. Now the question here, depending on where you draw the line in defining when from conception does the fetus become a person, is, “Does this fetus not have a right to life?” Although I understand this argument, a parent would want to give their child the best life they possibly could, and if the child is to suffer a short life full of medical issues, why would they want to subject their child to that kind of life? Having a child is also a burden financially, and if the child is to spend its whole life in and out of hospitals, racking up medical bills, only for it to pass away early on because of incurable conditions, why would the parent, or parents, want to subject themselves to that? The right to life, as Thomson indicates, is the “right to be given the bare minimum one needs for continued life” (Thomson, 1971). If this is the case, if the
This kind of argument puts a lot of the blame on the victim. If someone takes all the precautions in trying to prevent getting pregnant but still gets pregnant anyways, that shouldn’t be their fault. This kind of argument is similar to saying “if you don’t want to get in a car accident, don’t drive”, and can be used for any similar context. People have been having sex with no intention of having a baby since the beginning of time; it’s why people had mistresses, why brothels existed, why people pay for the company of sex workers. Someone should not be blamed and ridiculed and ostracized for doing what they want they do and having bad luck in the …show more content…
Although a fetus at this stage is fully formed and could be considered a child, depending on when someone considers a fetus a person, some people, upon hearing that the fetus is fatally impaired, may choose to have an abortion. This would an extremely difficult decision to make, as finding this information would happen around the 20-26-week mark, and by this time, the person pregnant would have already made the decision to have the child, but given the situation, chooses to have a late-term abortion. Now the question here, depending on where you draw the line in defining when from conception does the fetus become a person, is, “Does this fetus not have a right to life?” Although I understand this argument, a parent would want to give their child the best life they possibly could, and if the child is to suffer a short life full of medical issues, why would they want to subject their child to that kind of life? Having a child is also a burden financially, and if the child is to spend its whole life in and out of hospitals, racking up medical bills, only for it to pass away early on because of incurable conditions, why would the parent, or parents, want to subject themselves to that? The right to life, as Thomson indicates, is the “right to be given the bare minimum one needs for continued life” (Thomson, 1971). If this is the case, if the