Does my essay writers’ community grow each day? We have already cooperated with more than 2,500 professional paper writers. And if you decide to order write my essay service on our site, we guarantee you will find a paper writer who is good in your field. Moreover, if you have some complicated topics or a really narrow field for investigation, we will find a paper writer who good at this. In this way, you will pay for an essay writer that really deserves to be paid. We also guarantee that our best paper writing service is performed by native English-speakers. Each work is checked twice before we send it for your approval. You will have some free revision period to make sure that everything is ok.
Some anti-abortion activists argue that abortion may lead to depression and possibly suicide as a result of guilt feelings. A minority claim that abortion increases a woman's risk of suffering from breast cancer, and should be banned on precautionary grounds.
I suppose that in some viewsof human life the mother's body is only on loan to her, the loan not being onewhich gives her any prior claim to it. One who held this view might well thinkit impartiality to say "I cannot choose." But I shall simply ignorethis possibility. My own view is that if a human being has any just, priorclaim to anything at all, he has a just, prior claim to his own body. Andperhaps this needn't be argued for here anyway, since, as I mentioned, thearguments against abortion we are looking at do grant that the woman has aright to decide what happens in and to her body. But although they do grant it,I have tried to show that they do not take seriously what is done in granting it.I suggest the same thing will reappear even more clearly when we turn away fromcases in which the mother's life is at stake, and attend, as I propose we nowdo, to the vastly more common cases in which a woman wants an abortion for someless weighty reason than preserving her own life.
The extreme view could of course be weakened to say that while abortion is permissible to save the mother's life, it may not be performed by a third party, but only by the mother herself. But this cannot be right either. For what we have to keep in mind is that the mother and the unborn child are not like two tenants in a small house which has, by an unfortunate mistake, been rented to both: the mother owns the house. The fact that she does adds to the offensiveness of deducing that the mother can do nothing from the supposition that third parties can do nothing. But it does more than this: it casts a bright light on the supposition that third parties can do nothing. Certainly it lets us see that a third party who says "I cannot choose between you" is fooling himself if he thinks this is impartiality. If Jones has found and fastened on a certain coat, which he needs to keep him from freezing, but which Smith also needs to keep him from freezing, then it is not impartiality that says "I cannot choose between you" when Smith owns the coat. Women have said again and again "This body is my body!" and they have reason to feel angry, reason to feel that it has been like shouting into the wind. Smith, after all, is hardly likely to bless us if we say to him, "Of course it's your coat, anybody would grant that it is. But no one may choose between you and Jones who is to have it."
The difficulty I point tohere is not peculiar to the right of life. It reappears in connection with allthe other natural rights, and it is something which an adequate account ofrights must deal with. For present purposes it is enough just to draw attentionto it. But I would stress that I am not arguing that people do not have a rightto life--quite to the contrary, it seems to me that the primary control we mustplace on the acceptability of an account of rights is that it should turn outin that account to be a truth that all persons have a right to life. I amarguing only that having a right to life does not guarantee having either aright to be given the use of or a right to be allowed continued use of anotherperson s body--even if one needs it for life itself. So the right to life willnot serve the opponents of abortion in the very simple and clear way in whichthey seem to have thought it would.
But if this emendation isaccepted, the gap in the argument against abortion stares us plainly in theface: it is by no means enough to show that the fetus is a person, and toremind us that all persons have a right to life--we need to be shown also thatkilling the fetus violates its right to life, i.e., that abortion is unjustkilling. And is it?
In sum, a woman surely can defend her life against the threat to it posed by the unborn child, even if doing so involves its death. And this shows not merely that the theses in (1) through (4) are false; it shows also that the extreme view of abortion is false, and so we need not canvass any other possible ways of arriving at it from the argument I mentioned at the outset.
In this case, of course, youwere kidnapped, you didn't volunteer for the operation that plugged theviolinist into your kidneys. Can those who oppose abortion on the ground Imentioned make an exception for a pregnancy due to rape? Certainly. They cansay that persons have a right to life only if they didn't come into existencebecause of rape; or they can say that all persons have a right to life, butthat some have less of a right to life than others, in particular, that thosewho came into existence because of rape have less. But these statements have arather unpleasant sound. Surely the question of whether you have a right tolife at all, or how much of it you have, shouldn't turn on the question ofwhether or not you are a product of a rape. And in fact the people who opposeabortion on the ground I mentioned do not make this distinction, and hence donot make an exception in case of rape.
But it might be argued thatthere are other ways one can have acquired a right to the use of anotherperson's body than by having been invited to use it by that person. Suppose awoman voluntarily indulges in intercourse, knowing of the chance it will issuein pregnancy, and then she does become pregnant; is she not in part responsiblefor the presence, in fact the very existence, of the unborn person inside? Nodoubt she did not invite it in. But doesn't her partial responsibility for itsbeing there itself give it a right to the use of her body? If so, then heraborting it would be more like the boys taking away the chocolates, and lesslike your unplugging yourself from the violinist--doing so would be deprivingit of what it does have a right to, and thus would be doing it an injustice.
“As long as they are going stay in the abortion business, that is an organization that shouldn’t be getting one red cent of federal tax money,” Monica Miller, director of Citizens for a Pro-Life Society and one of the national organizers of the anti-abortion rallies, told Reuters.
President Donald Trump, , has since reversed his position and campaigned to limit abortion access. Some Republican members of Congress have backed the de-funding initiative for Planned Parenthood, which receives Medicaid reimbursements and Title X funding to support family planning.
The first thing to be saidabout this is that it is something new. Opponents of abortion have been soconcerned to make out the independence of the fetus, in order to establish thatit has a right to life, just as its mother does, that they have tended tooverlook the possible support they might gain from making out that the fetus isdependent on the mother, in order to establish that she has a special kind ofresponsibility for it, a responsibility that gives it rights against her whichare not possessed by any independent person--such as an ailing violinist who isa stranger to her.