The controversy behind abortion is widespread and undeniable. While there are many oppositions to performing abortions at any stage of pregnancy, women should not be prevented from making a choice as to what happens to their bodies. Any beliefs regarding pregnancy and abortion return and depend solely on what the woman in the situation herself believes, and under no circumstances should she be told what she is allowed to with her body. The extent of a woman’s right to an abortion should be unlimited. There are countless oppositions to this stance, yet I firmly believe that each individual has the right to decide if they will undergo something as tremendous and consuming as carrying another entity within them for months.
Pregnancies that take …show more content…
Even people that would otherwise condemn abortion often allow that a woman should not be forced to die for the sake of something which has not yet fully developed. Abortion as a means of self-defense is granted leniency because the fetus, while not intentionally, is threatening the life of a person, and that danger can be prevented. In the United States there are laws allowing for people to kill others if it is the only way to protect themselves, and dangerous pregnancies follow the same logic. There is also additional sympathy given to women that request an abortion following a rape, because that woman bares no responsibility for her situation. She did not willingly preform any act that could have resulted in pregnancy, and therefore did not have any choice in whether or not the fetus came into being.
Possibly the most argued topic regarding abortion revolves around the point at which the fetus gains the right to life. My argument is that a woman’s right to choose what happens to her body is greater than any right the fetus may have, therefore making this topic irrelevant. Surely, there must be some instances to which this becomes a bit of a grey area, as with …show more content…
This can be argued in a number of ways. First, if a woman wants to have an abortion, that indicates that she believes, for one reason or another, that her life would benefit more from terminating the pregnancy than from continuing it. Would it not follow that her life would, at least to some extent, also be deprived, should she be forced to carry the pregnancy to term? Second, if not clarified properly, this stance could be taken to mean that contraception and abstinence were also opposed. Both of these are forms of pregnancy prevention. In the act of preventing pregnancy, are you not also preventing an entity from coming into existence, and it from having a future? Yes, in the case of abortion the egg is already fertilized and developing, but at conception, and for some time after, it is nothing more than a miniscule mass of cells. Preventing that mass of cells from a possible future is not much different from preventing two cells from coming together in the first place. In order to deprive one of future experiences and values, it must have some sort of life from which to expand upon. This brings us back to the question of determining when life begins, which is too great a task at this
Pregnancies that take …show more content…
Even people that would otherwise condemn abortion often allow that a woman should not be forced to die for the sake of something which has not yet fully developed. Abortion as a means of self-defense is granted leniency because the fetus, while not intentionally, is threatening the life of a person, and that danger can be prevented. In the United States there are laws allowing for people to kill others if it is the only way to protect themselves, and dangerous pregnancies follow the same logic. There is also additional sympathy given to women that request an abortion following a rape, because that woman bares no responsibility for her situation. She did not willingly preform any act that could have resulted in pregnancy, and therefore did not have any choice in whether or not the fetus came into being.
Possibly the most argued topic regarding abortion revolves around the point at which the fetus gains the right to life. My argument is that a woman’s right to choose what happens to her body is greater than any right the fetus may have, therefore making this topic irrelevant. Surely, there must be some instances to which this becomes a bit of a grey area, as with …show more content…
This can be argued in a number of ways. First, if a woman wants to have an abortion, that indicates that she believes, for one reason or another, that her life would benefit more from terminating the pregnancy than from continuing it. Would it not follow that her life would, at least to some extent, also be deprived, should she be forced to carry the pregnancy to term? Second, if not clarified properly, this stance could be taken to mean that contraception and abstinence were also opposed. Both of these are forms of pregnancy prevention. In the act of preventing pregnancy, are you not also preventing an entity from coming into existence, and it from having a future? Yes, in the case of abortion the egg is already fertilized and developing, but at conception, and for some time after, it is nothing more than a miniscule mass of cells. Preventing that mass of cells from a possible future is not much different from preventing two cells from coming together in the first place. In order to deprive one of future experiences and values, it must have some sort of life from which to expand upon. This brings us back to the question of determining when life begins, which is too great a task at this