Pro-lifers emphasize the sacredness of life; pro-choicers emphasize the right to control their uterus. How sha

Question

Pro-lifers emphasize the sacredness of life; pro-choicers emphasize the right to control their uterus. How shall one look at this objectively?

Answer 1

Its a tricky one.
My personal view tends towards being against the idea of abortion- BUT looking at it objectively I think that to be pro-choice in the true sense of the term- to accept that each person has the ultinate right to hold their view on abortion and act accordingly without enforcing that view on others is as close to objectivity as one can get. However, this also has a major flaw, in that one could argue that by allowing a woman to have an abortion, she inflicts her views on her unborn child. It depends a lot on whether you choose to see an embryo as a collection of cells or a baby- which no-one can ever agree on. SO I'm not sure there is any objectivity to be had. Everyone is influenced by something on this, whether its religion, politics, personal experience or science- all these things create some bias of some description.
My personal view, trying to be objective as I can, is that although I dislike the idea of abortions happening that they shouldn't be illegal. Firstly, because there are situations where pregnancy or birth would threaten the life of the mother- and I believe that the rights of the already born outweigh the rights of the unborn, and secondly because I accept that abortions are always going to happen, young girls will always get pregnant by mistake and be desperate to rid themselves of it, whatever we teach them (If it happens under Islamic Sharia law it can happen anywhere). Personally I would rather think that if for some reason a girl decided to have an abortion that it happened in a clean, proffesional environment of a hospital rather than some dangerous botch job with a knitting needle that left her dying on the table of some strangers basement. Looking at it in real-world terms I think that's as close to objective as you're going to get. And even then people are going to disagree with me.

Answer 2

Abortion is simply not an objective question. Even if you disregard the termination of "unwanted" pregnancies, to destroy a fetus determined to be genetically defective is still a moral issue. Maybe there are those who are dispassionate enough to reduce the question to the dollars and cents of keeping a being alive who is physically and/or menially deformed. But there are, at the same time, those who will argue that man has no right to take that life, even in the womb. For my part, I subscribe to the pro choice notion. Not because I think abortion is a good thing, but because I think it's a moral choice that must be made by the individual. Let them live with whatever decision they make.

Answer 3

If you approach abortion as you've outlined, you could objectively compare the two "rights." Does the right to life outweigh the right to control a uterus or vice versa?

In the case of abortion, the mother's uterus is a part of a living human being while her child is a living human being. I think the life of her child outweighs her right to "empty" her uterus by aborting her child.

Answer 4

its within your heart,don't look for others to guide you, they will confuse you, your soul and heart will tell you whats the right belief for you,