In this paper, I will be discussing Patrick Lee’s and Robert George’s position that because of the moral duty one has to make sacrifices for others, the right to abortion is only held by those whose lives are put in danger in bringing the fetus to full term. I will then refute this stance in expanding the criteria of when one has the right to abortion.
In their paper, “The Wrong of Abortion”, Lee and George tackle the morality of abortion claiming it to be “objectively immoral” (Lee and George, 2014 p. 37). In proving this thesis, they set out to rebut the bodily rights argument that states that though the unborn fetus has the right to life by virtue of being a human, they are not entitled to use their mother’s bodies as a means …show more content…
In their paper, Lee and George concluded there is only one condition in which abortion is morally justified. However, if insinuating someone must make a sacrifice of autonomy, bodily rights, and at times financial and emotional well being, the sacrifice should be done in conditions in which a chance for success is possible. In this case, success would be the acquisition of minimal welfare for the child rather than birthing them in a position of disadvantage that harms the quality of their life. Stipulations do exist in which the acquisition of minimal welfare is impossible. For example, when the option of adoption is not available, and the parents do not have the ability to support the child: a situation that is common for children conceived in times of war or disaster. Though there is an abundance of willing individuals who are willing to adopt the child, as the government system in these countries are often defunct and don’t have the means to facilitate these adoptions. Parents would then be forced to bring up the child in a country ravaged by war spurring disastrous effects on the child. Firstly, the children would find their survival and development rights constantly infringed upon on in the neglect, violence, and abuse they were exposed to. Additionally, ill effects would extend further than the hardships endured during the duration of the war. In fact, studies have shown that traumatic “circumstances early in [one’s] life, and particularly during pregnancy, can affect [one’s] health for the remainder of life” (Lindenboom and Ewjick, 2015). These ill effects would extend further than just physical health with children born in warring nations experiencing a significant reduction in mental health based on the trauma they have endured often suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or at the very least decreased confidence that hinders their potential throughout their lives. When
In their paper, “The Wrong of Abortion”, Lee and George tackle the morality of abortion claiming it to be “objectively immoral” (Lee and George, 2014 p. 37). In proving this thesis, they set out to rebut the bodily rights argument that states that though the unborn fetus has the right to life by virtue of being a human, they are not entitled to use their mother’s bodies as a means …show more content…
In their paper, Lee and George concluded there is only one condition in which abortion is morally justified. However, if insinuating someone must make a sacrifice of autonomy, bodily rights, and at times financial and emotional well being, the sacrifice should be done in conditions in which a chance for success is possible. In this case, success would be the acquisition of minimal welfare for the child rather than birthing them in a position of disadvantage that harms the quality of their life. Stipulations do exist in which the acquisition of minimal welfare is impossible. For example, when the option of adoption is not available, and the parents do not have the ability to support the child: a situation that is common for children conceived in times of war or disaster. Though there is an abundance of willing individuals who are willing to adopt the child, as the government system in these countries are often defunct and don’t have the means to facilitate these adoptions. Parents would then be forced to bring up the child in a country ravaged by war spurring disastrous effects on the child. Firstly, the children would find their survival and development rights constantly infringed upon on in the neglect, violence, and abuse they were exposed to. Additionally, ill effects would extend further than the hardships endured during the duration of the war. In fact, studies have shown that traumatic “circumstances early in [one’s] life, and particularly during pregnancy, can affect [one’s] health for the remainder of life” (Lindenboom and Ewjick, 2015). These ill effects would extend further than just physical health with children born in warring nations experiencing a significant reduction in mental health based on the trauma they have endured often suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or at the very least decreased confidence that hinders their potential throughout their lives. When