Abortion has been a very controversial and sensitive topic since the legalization of the procedure in 1988. Those in favour of legal abortions are considered pro-choice, while those who oppose are pro-life. Douglas Groothius’s short essay titled “Why I am pro-life, a short, non-sectarian argument” briefly explains his perspective on abortion. Groothius believes the procedure should be illegal under nearly all circumstances, with only one exception: if the pregnancy is threatening to the mother’s life. Groothius considers abortion to be murder, as abortion is the surgical or chemical removal of a fetus from the mother, thus killing the fetus. I strongly disagree with Groothius 's opinion; I believe abortion should be legal under any and all
…show more content…
However, Groothius leaves the mother 's rights and the potentially improper environmental circumstances out of this special “moral consideration” humans are allegedly worthy of. In his argument, it seems as though the only humans worthy of this unique consideration are unborn fetus’s, as Groothius repeatedly ignores the emotions and lives of those carrying and caring for the child. Groothius states:“An unwanted pregnancy is difficult, but the answer is not to kill a human being in order to end that pregnancy. Moreover, a baby can be put up for adoption and bring joy to others” (3). A woman deserves to have the right to decide what happens to her own body, and in this case, the fetus within her. It’s unfair and unethical to force any individual through nine months of pregnancy followed by childbirth without their consent, regardless if that child will be adopted or not. Pregnancy is not something to be taken lightly; it drastically changes a woman 's body and mind, as well as permanently altering a woman 's physical appearance in one way or another. To put a child up for adoption is …show more content…
Groothius insists that because a fetus is a human person, the process of an abortion is equivalent to murder. Groothius states “all unnecessary and intentional life-taking is murder, a deeply evil and repugnant offense against human beings” (2). A fetus may have the capability of becoming a developed, conscious human, however having an abortion is not equivalent to murder. The unborn relies entirely on the mother for its existence and development, therefore the mother deserves the right to decide whether or not the fetus may reside within her. A women should not be called a murderer if she chooses to remove what she’s unwillingly grown within herself. During the abortion, the fetus will undergo the painless procedure without the knowledge of it even occurring. If abortions were to be banned, the procedure would continue to take place illegally and unsafely, as there are millions of women willing to jeopardize their lives by undergoing an unsafe abortion. Every year in countries where abortion is banned, an estimated 47,000 women die during high-risk illegal abortion operations, not including the thousands left injured or harmed. Is allowing mothers to die with the fetus due to an unsafe abortion moral? Making the procedure illegal would be counter productive morally when considering these unsafe, underground abortions. Groothius must recognize why a women would choose to have an abortion, as no expecting,
However, Groothius leaves the mother 's rights and the potentially improper environmental circumstances out of this special “moral consideration” humans are allegedly worthy of. In his argument, it seems as though the only humans worthy of this unique consideration are unborn fetus’s, as Groothius repeatedly ignores the emotions and lives of those carrying and caring for the child. Groothius states:“An unwanted pregnancy is difficult, but the answer is not to kill a human being in order to end that pregnancy. Moreover, a baby can be put up for adoption and bring joy to others” (3). A woman deserves to have the right to decide what happens to her own body, and in this case, the fetus within her. It’s unfair and unethical to force any individual through nine months of pregnancy followed by childbirth without their consent, regardless if that child will be adopted or not. Pregnancy is not something to be taken lightly; it drastically changes a woman 's body and mind, as well as permanently altering a woman 's physical appearance in one way or another. To put a child up for adoption is …show more content…
Groothius insists that because a fetus is a human person, the process of an abortion is equivalent to murder. Groothius states “all unnecessary and intentional life-taking is murder, a deeply evil and repugnant offense against human beings” (2). A fetus may have the capability of becoming a developed, conscious human, however having an abortion is not equivalent to murder. The unborn relies entirely on the mother for its existence and development, therefore the mother deserves the right to decide whether or not the fetus may reside within her. A women should not be called a murderer if she chooses to remove what she’s unwillingly grown within herself. During the abortion, the fetus will undergo the painless procedure without the knowledge of it even occurring. If abortions were to be banned, the procedure would continue to take place illegally and unsafely, as there are millions of women willing to jeopardize their lives by undergoing an unsafe abortion. Every year in countries where abortion is banned, an estimated 47,000 women die during high-risk illegal abortion operations, not including the thousands left injured or harmed. Is allowing mothers to die with the fetus due to an unsafe abortion moral? Making the procedure illegal would be counter productive morally when considering these unsafe, underground abortions. Groothius must recognize why a women would choose to have an abortion, as no expecting,