This quote provides a snapshot into the issue of abortion from the did of pro-choice. Is it our place as a society to decide what’s best for individual families? Trending into no man’s land to find common ground, through legislation and requirements. This tough decision can be left to the families that walk in those shoes and not the society that just stands on the outside. . Two valid sources for gathering information (that are not biased): According to ‘u. Abortion Statistics” (2005-2014), ” On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 3/4 say they Anton afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner. Only of women included a physical problem with their health among reasons for having an abortion. One per cent (of aborting women) reported that they were the survivors of rape or incest.

Women living with a partner to whom they are not married account for 25% of abortions but only about 10% of women in the population. ” Even when you look at the statistic’s on abortion it’s really up to the family if abortion is the way to go. More women would be to decide for homeless and make that choice depending on their own circumstances. The political and ethical theories involved in this debate include deontological and consequentiality (Scenario, 201 1). Pro-choice supporters would follow consequentiality because they are apprehensive about the aftermaths of having or not having an abortion.

These can include health problems for the mother or the abilities to properly care for the child, as well as other issues. Those who support pro-life might be viewed as deontological, because they believe that it is a mother’s ethical and moral duty to value the hill’s life and by having an abortion she would essentially committing murder. It might seem that the pro-choice “culture” and the pro-life “culture” obviously have different moral standards, and perhaps they do.

On the Other hand, they might both accept the standard that it is wrong to kill a living person but just disagree about whether a fetus counts as a living person (13. 256). According to ‘The Ethics of Abortion” (1997-2014),” the legality of abortion was confirmed. The United States Supreme Court struck down a Texas stature that prohibited abortion procedures, no matter how medically urgent they eight be. This decision, commonly known as Roe v. Wade, is the most important legal mile stone in the debate.

In its decision, the court acknowledged that it cannot rule as to when life begins, since medicine, theology, and Philosophy has no consensus on this matter. ‘The legalization of the termination Of pregnancy is none other than the authorization given to the adult, with the approval of established law, to take the lives of children yet unborn and thus incapable of defending themselves” (Pope John Paul II). According to this view, pro-choice advocates do not to grant any recognition r moral status to fetal life at all, effectively leaving the life of the fetus completely out of the process of ethical decision-making.

A right to privacy arguably also would cover a right to engage in various forms of sexual intimacies; whether there is such a constitutional right therefore is questioned by those who would proscribe sexual practices they regard as immoral (p. 328) The pro-choice side, however, often sees pro-life advocates as concerned only with the life of the unborn and callous about the lives and opportunities of those same children from the moment they are born.

Pro-life advocates appear to give virtual sovereignty to the fetus, blind to the stark realities Of poverty and human hardship, while ruling out abortion regardless of the circumstances of the pregnancy or the well-being of the mother. ” The two main groups on abortion include the people who support pro-life and pro-choice. Pro-life supporters are the people that believe that life begins at conception. This belief is based on moral and ethical issues as well as religious implications. The opposing group, pro-choice supporters, believes that life does not begin until after the baby is born and that the choice longs to the family.

Kant Kant, unlike Mill believed that certain types of actions (murder, lying, and theft) were absolutely prohibited, even in cases where the action would bring happiness than alternative. For Kantian, there are two questions that we must ask ourselves whenever we decide to act. 1 . Can I rationally will that everyone act as I propose to act? If the answer is no, then we must not perform the action. 2. Does my action respect the goals of human beings rather than merely using them for my own purpose? Again, if the answer is no, then we must not perform that action.

Kant believes that these questions were equivalent. For Kant, what I should do, I should do because it is right. Doing something for any other purpose-?for the sake of happiness or the welfare of humankind, for example-?is not to act morally. It is to act under the command of a hypothetical imperative, which is not unconditional, as a moral imperative must be (p. 281). Aristotle For Aristotle to the state is a living organism, one that exists to promote the good life for humans: a state is good to the extent that it enables its citizens to have the good life.

The form of the ideal state depends on the circumstances. Aristotle, too, regarded the state as an organism, as a living being that exists for some end, for some purpose. That purpose, he believed, is to promote the good life for humans. The good life, for Aristotle, is one that gives you the highest human good-?happiness (p. 311). According to natural law political theory, questions of political ethics are to be answered by reference to the so-called natural law, which alone supposedly determines what is right and wrong, good and bad, just and unjust, proper and improper p. 1 3) Utilitarianism They believed that the rightness of an action is identical with the happiness it produces as its consequence. The utilitarian’s said that the morally best act is the one that produces the greatest amount of happiness with everyone considered. They believed that, when you are trying to produce happiness, it is not just your own happiness you should aim for but rather the happiness of people in general. It is common to attribute to the utilitarian’s the view that the right act is the one that produces “the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

That phrase-?the greatest happiness for the greatest number-?is unfortunate, because it tells us to maximize two different things. Oust try to plot the greatest happiness for the greatest number as a single line on a graph, with happiness as one variable and number as a second variable! ) You can say, “The more people who have a given amount of happiness, the better,” and you can say, “The more happiness a given number of people have, the better’ (p. 285). The greater happiness could be played by pro- choice because ideally more people would be happy to decide for themselves ND make that choice depending on their own Circumstances.

Feminism A feminist believes that the root of this problem is that the woman has to carry the baby and has the right to choose what is right for her. A woman should have the right to her body and her health and should have the choice as to what happens to her body (Schooner, 2000). Many believe that in cases of rape and incest abortion should be an option, because the woman did not willingly choose to engage in activity that would produce pregnancy. Pro- choice supporters would follow consequentiality because they are apprehensive about the aftermaths of having or not having an abortion.

These can include health problems for the mother or the abilities to properly care for the child, as well as other issues. Those who support pro-life might be viewed as deontological, because they believe that it is a mothers ethical and moral duty to value the child’s life and by having an abortion she would essentially committing murder. Egoism Egoism is for one’s self interest instead of interest of others. There are two types of egoism there is descriptive egoism, the doctrine that in all conscious action you seek to promote your self-interest above all else.

Then there is prescriptive egoism, the doctrine that in all conscious action you ought to seek your self-interest above all else (p. ASS). Egoism is faced with one concern when it comes to the topic of abortion and that is looking out for number one. One’s self is, or should be, the motivation and the goal of one’s own action. Someone could choose to abort because the women’s life would be “destroyed”. Her chance at life would be different. The focus of egoism is the selfishness viewpoint with respect to aborting a baby. In this case, the best interests of a mother are examined.

This does not necessarily mean that making a decision to have an abortion is an act of selfishness (Haney, 2008). Give a conclusion/ possible solution I feel that a good solution to the problem would be to allow abortion in the cases that consist of health concerns for the mother or the child, as well as rape and incest cases. In addition I would suggest a limitation on how many weeks into the pregnancy a woman can get an abortion. I believe that this would placate the pro-choice group by delivering a solution in the event that a Oman did not have control over her body and to avoid a lifetime of suffering for her or the child.

Even though there is already a stipulation in what term a baby can be aborted, feel that the solution that I have come up with would mollify both the pro-life and the pro-choice advocates. By making abortion illegal with only certain exceptions added, the pro-life supports can consider abortion as true ethical obscurity because essentially a life has been destroyed. With that said, by implementing this solution to abortion a woman can choose to have an abortion founded on extreme circumstances, acknowledging pro-choice supporters who believe a woman has a right to choose what happens to her body.

Find at least 2 peer-reviewed sources in the university Library According to “Pro Choice or No Choice” (November 4 1 988),”Abortion proponents growing concern about the rescue movement is evident. Kate Michelin, executive director of the national rights action league, said that “Honest people can differ on the issue of abortion” and that “nobody who opposes abortion should ever be pressed or coerced into having one. She added “that the right to decide if and when to have children belong to women and their families, not the government. ” I would have to agree with Kate Michelin.

It’s really up to women to decide on have the child or not. The government should not be able to put their two cents in the situation. If the child was product of rape or incest it’s up to the women to keep it. If Xx a medical reason then it’s up to the doctor and the mother to decide on the baby’s fate. According to ‘Pro-Life Millennial: The polls Vs. the Facts” (Summer 2014),” The overall American attitude has certainly become more profile over the last generation, but numbers relayed in recent polls appear to reflect a degree of stagnation.

The standard question in most major, mainstream polls is worded something like this: “On abortion, do you consider yourself pro-choice or pro- life? ” A few polls ask instead whether or not respondents support Roe v. Wade. Pollsters have traditionally categorized people who would allow abortion in limited cases-that is, for such exceptions as rape and incest-as “precipice. ” A full 50% of respondents told Gallup this year that they believe abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances.