The phenomenon of abortion have become widespread in this modern society hence is a burning issue that needs to be addressed. There have been many debates concerning this concept throughout the world where some view it as a crime while others do not consider it as such. These debates are about the controversy that surrounds the legal and moral status of abortion. All the constitutions contain the clause about the rights of the child and in particular right to life of a child that is greatly violated by this practice. It actually refers to pregnancy termination through the expulsion or removal from the uterus of an embryo or uterus prior to viability. However, it can occur spontaneously, where under these circumstances it is called a miscarriage. This term most frequently refers to a human pregnancy induced abortion.
Judith Jarvis Thomson has written her arguments about limited abortion rights. She argues that the right of a fetus to life is not essentially enough to deem the act of an abortion as an impermissible act. What she implies is that the woman who carries that fetus actually has more of a right to maintain her body in a state that is desirable than a fetus does have to life. She uses several examples and evidences in trying to convince us. In the first example, she utilizes the mentality of various “pro-lifers.” This mentality is about the right to life of a fetus. What she actually says is that this pro-life argument has an assumption that a right to life essentially implies the right to means to life.
The example that she uses about someone waking up in the morning, and eventually finding herself back to back in the bed with unconscious violinists, to pro-lifer argument is acceptable and expected. This suggests that a particular independent person individual has a right to someone else’s body is in fact unfair. All through the fetal stages it fails to have its life independent from the mother since it depends on its mother for life. This in real sense is same as the scenario of victim-violinist. Nevertheless, these two scenarios have a moral difference that is significant. In my religion it is in fact my moral standing that a child or a fetus to be more specific is a gift from above.
She really to the actuality that the arguments of pro-lifers do not satisfactorily give an explanation about how the mentality of right to life applies to pregnancy induced illnesses or rape. Here she seems to ask about the rights of the mother. On my side, the mentality concerning pro-life is fueled by the faith I have. The act of abortion is not acceptable on the rape issue since the child inside the body is not responsible for the heinous act of rape.
She argues that even if the unborn child is granted the same rights and status as any other person, the act of abortion still is morally permissible. She provides various arguments from analogy, all of which are intended to convince us that diverse variations of conservative argument are essentially unfounded. She begins by telling us her take on extreme view for the abortion immorality. She argues that a fetus becomes a human being from the conception moment. She goes further and says that each human being is a person who has a life to life. In my understanding of these two points, she is suggesting that from the moment of conception is when a fetus is given a right to life.
In addition, she says that each individual has his or her right to make decisions about what happens to his or her own body and goes further to say that a right to life is important than a right to make decision on what takes place in one’s body. Consequently, the act of abortion is at all times morally impermissible. Next, she offers her rebuttal about the scenario of “expanding child” where she says that in the case of someone finding himself trapped in a house that is tiny with a child who is growing and rapidly engorging, and eventually this child bursting from that house and killing you. What she argues here is that even though that child is innocent, that does not mean that you can fail to intervene to kill that child to save your life. This is an example of a technique of arguing by analogy.
In my views and belief the act of abortion is immoral since killing that unborn child is similar to killing a person that is obviously unacceptable according to the laws and religious teachings. Any right that one has to his or her body is in reality trumped by the right of the fetus to live. For that reason, I stand to oppose her since she is not right. This is because according to the religious teachings, only God has the authority or power to give and take someone’s life at the time that he feels is right and no human being is like God albeit we are created in His own image.
References
Judith Jarvis Thomson, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), "A Defense of Abortion" in What's Wrong: Applied Ethicists and Their Critics, ed. David Boonin and Graham Oddie
Beckwith, Francis J. (1991). "Christian Research Journal, summer 1991, page 28 – When Does a Human Become a Person"
