First I would like to address some of the most prominent anti-abortion arguments, starting with that a fetus or a fertilized egg is a person and subsequently has rights. To counter this argument, I would like to introduce a thought experiment which I heard some time ago, but I am not sure of its origin. I am stating this to ensure that no one is mistaken that this is my thought experiment, but I cannot credit the correct author because it has traveled primarily by word of mouth. Without further ado the thought experiment. Imagine you are a firefighter in a burning building, and there are two people in the building. You only have time to save one of them before the building collapses and you cannot carry them both, which would you choose? Any person should hesitate in choosing between two equivalents, two people. Now say you are in a burning building and there is a canister containing one fertilized egg, or a fetus, and a boy. Who would you save this time? I'm assuming you'd save the boy. This is to illustrate that a fetus is not, in fact, the equivalent of a person. Now say there is a 10 canisters, each containing a fetus/fertilized egg, and again, a boy or girl of whatever age. This time you can choose to save the 10 canisters or the boy/girl. Again I would argue you choose to save the boy/girl. What I hope to illustrate here is that a fertilized egg is not even the equivalent of 1/10th a person. Therefore, a fetus/fertilized egg is not a person, and does not have the same rights.
Say you aren't convinced, and for whatever reason you would choose to save the canisters with fertilized eggs, or you say "sure the fetuses aren't people, but that doesn't mean we have the right to kill them". This next thought experiment by Judith Jarvis Thompson is meant to counter those views. This thought experiment is a little weird, but I find it completely analogous to the situation at hand, and it makes a valid point, so bear with me. Say you want to go to an orchestra, but you read in the newspaper there is a group of violin enthusiasts, who are planning to kidnap someone going to the orchestra and attaching them to their leader, a great violinist who's kidneys are failing. You decide to go to the orchestra anyway, because you really want to see it. You are kidnapped, and you wake up, attached to the dying violinist, who is using your kidneys survive. Now, do you legally have the right to detach the violinist, thus killing him? I would argue yes, he is using your body without your permission. I know this thought experiment is quite odd, but I will go over how it is analogous and makes a valid point. Reading in the newspaper about the violinists plan is analogous of your knowledge that having sex may cause pregnancy. Going to the orchestra is equivalent to having sex anyway. Being kidnapped and attached is the equivalent of becoming pregnant. Finally having the violinist removed is the equivalent of having an abortion. What this thought experiment illustrates is that, Even if you consider a fetus a person, It does not have the right to use your body without your permission.
Now I want to cover some statistics regarding abortion, more specifically fetal consciousness. According to a study by The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
"
"
From this study, It is safe to assume that a fetus cannot feel pain, nor is conscious before 24 weeks of development, or prior to about 6 months of pregnancy. In a study by Operation Rescue, a pro-life organization, They found 1% of abortions are performed at 21 weeks of development or more. In conjunction with the Royal College study, 99% or more of all abortions in the U.S. are performed while the fetus is unconscious and cannot feel pain. If you've ever watched Fox news, you probably know they are notorious for pushing republican ideals like de-legalizing abortion. Accord to Fox News' website,
"100 are performed in the third trimester (more than 24 weeks' gestation), approximately .01 percent of all abortions performed. "
In this essay I am not trying to claim that abortion is some great thing. I am just stating that sometimes it is a viable option, and whether it is a viable option should be decided by the woman who is pregnant, not the government. Issues such as these should not be decided on emotion alone, but with facts and extended thought on the subject.
Works Cited
Abortion, Pro's/Con's. "Abortion ProCon.org." Abortion ProCon.org. 31 Jan. 2012. Web. 24 Feb. 2012. <http://abortion.procon.org/>.
Fast Facts: U.S. Abortion Statistics | Fox News." Fox News. FOX News Network, 17 June 2003. Web. 22 Feb. 2012. <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,880,00.html>.
Operation, Recuse. "Operation Rescue." Abortions In America :. Operation Rescue, 12 Mar. 2009. Web. 23 Feb. 2012. <http://www.operationrescue.org/about-abortion/abortions-in-america/>.
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. "RCOG Release: RCOG Updates Its Guidance." Welcome to the RCOG. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 25 June 2010. Web. 22 Feb. 2012. <http://www.rcog.org.uk/news/rcog-release-rcog-updates-its-guidance>.
In the beginning of the article there is a thesis statement- "abortion should be legal in the United States".
ReplyDeleteThe context would be the United States, the subject would be abortion, and the claim would be that they should be legal. The thesis is present throughout the essay and the body paragraphs provide examples and statistics that support legalizing abortions in the United States.
There were a few problems that I noticed regarding punctuation and grammar, but everything was still readable and could still be comprehended.
Although I did think the examples used were slightly strange, I thought they illustrated the point and could be easily understood. The use of statistics was also helpful in explaining why the legalization of abortions is fair and just.