Why women have Abortion?
Women have abortions for different reasons; each reason is essential to each woman; however, personal preference, finances, government, religion, and culture play a part. I will discuss whether it is acceptable for a woman to have an abortion when her life is not in danger. I will present the argument that abortion is morally acceptable; even the woman’s life is not in danger due to pregnancy. My research will support each side of the subject; I will evaluate each party’s perspective. I will use scholarly arguments to support each conclusion on whether abortion is acceptable or unacceptable when a woman’s life is not in danger due to pregnancy.
Several researchers provided their arguments about how abortion is morally acceptable when a woman’s life is not in danger due to pregnancy. They supported their opinions through legal aspects such as women’s constitutional rights. Their opinions are valid because women have the right to decide on their bodies. Based on the text,” Since the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade recognizing women’s constitutional right to abortion, states have enacted over 1000 laws or regulations restricting access to abortion.” (Perreira et al. 2020).” Singlehood, student status, unemployment, career trajectory, relationship instability, and current number of children have all been further identified as central to women’s decisions to terminate a pregnancy (Sihvo, Majos, ducot, Kaminski, & The Cocon Group, 2003). Additionally, the significant others in a woman’s social sphere exert an influence over her abortion decisions (ARCC, 2006; Broen et al., 2005; Lawrence, Finer, Frohwirth, Singh, & Moore, 2005).”
The primary argument in standard form:
Premise 1: In the United States, Abortion is legal.
Premise 2: Women are not financially preparing for a child.
Conclusion- In the United States, Abortion is legal, and women are not financially preparing for a child. As a result, Abortion is morally acceptable when a woman’s life is not in danger due to pregnancy.
Although the premises are substantial and they support the conclusion. The article presented restrictions in most of the states in the USA, which made it difficult for some women to gain access to have an abortion. The data showed the percentage of women who believed it was difficult to get access to clinics, mostly if they were in lower-income status. The women who found that is not easy were religious, never been pregnant, or had not accidental pregnancy. Women who graduated from college had a different perception than the less fortunate women. The article points out the limitation of the argument, “When women with unplanned pregnancies perceive substantial barriers to accessing abortions, they may self-induce abortion or carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. One recent national study estimated that 1 of every ten abortions was a self-induced abortion attempt.” (Perreira et al., 2020).
The moral issue about abortion is also durable and liable. According to the article from 2018, “Much of the debate on the ethics of abortion has centered around the notion of personhood. This is because many philosophers hold that the morality of abortion is contingent on whether or not a fetus is a person.”(Bioethics, 2018). The argument to support this view is summarized as follow:
Premise 1- Abortion is similar to ending the life of someone.
Premise 2- Abortion is a sin because the woman is a Christian or another religion against ending a pregnancy.
Abortion is similar to ending the life of someone. Killing is immoral; if a woman aborts a child, it is related to killing a person. As a result, it is a sin if the woman is a Christian or another religion against ending a pregnancy. Hence Abortion is morally not acceptable when a woman’s life is not in danger due to pregnancy.
Based on the text “Disagree with most medical authorities about the definition of pregnancy. They mistakenly believe that pregnancy begins with the fertilization of the egg. Most authorities believe that pregnancy begins when the implantation of the fertilized egg into the lining of the uterus is complete.” (Blackburn, WR, 2005).
According to the text, “Regarding the first. Hays sees the symbolic world of the New Testament as affirming God as the creator of life, particularly citing John 1:3–5. Abortion, then, is seen as destroying God’s work: “Whether we accord ‘personhood’ to the unborn child or not, he or she is a manifestation of new life that has come forth from God we neither create ourselves nor belong to ourselves.” (Blackburn, WR, 2005).
The conclusion of the argument is Abortion is acceptable when a woman’s health is not at risk. Although most religions agree, it is a sin to end a life. Most abortions occur in the first phase of pregnancy. There are many articles in favor of the premises, and the references are given to support them. Finally, the arguments in this paper are excellent regarding the conclusion.
Abortion is wrong because human embryos have the same moral status as an adult human being from conception. The appeal to fear is used to convince women not to have an abortion.
The arguments were strong but with complications because of the subject at hand deal with so many aspects of life. Each of the discussion was right according to the areas in which researchers were coming from. The scholarly and the non-scholarly were strong and bias since the subject deal with a human being and their decision to take action, which might impact their lives forever.
Researching about abortion is not a black or white subject, and it was not easy. Each side of the argument was strong, and researchers touch on every aspect of women’s behavior’s when it came to abortion. The evidence was reliable, and they support the conclusion on each side. I can see the point of view of each side of the argument. Abortion is morally acceptable when a woman’s life is not in danger; women have the choice to have or not have an abortion. Women acknowledge the responsibility of bringing a child into her life; they need to be mentally, physically, and spiritually.
Blackburn WR, (2005). The Human life review [Hum Life Rev], ISSN: 0097–9783, Vol. 31 (2), pp. 67–85; Publisher: Human Life Foundation]; PMID: 16285126, Database: MEDLINE PubMed Simmons, Paul D. Journal of Church & State. Summer90, Vol. 32, Issue 3, p567. 18p. DOI: 10.1093/jcs/32.3.567. Reading Level (Lexile): 1330. Retrieved from http://www.ashford.edu
Cassie da Costa. (, 2020). The Daily Beast; New York [New York].Retrieved from http://www.ashford.edu
Filipovic, Jill. In: Foreign Policy. (, 2017). Issue 223, pages. 12; Foreign Policy, 2017. Language: English, Database: Business Insights Global. Retrieved from http://www.ashford.edu
Gogolin, Fabian; Dowling, Michael; Cummins, Mark; (2017). Applied Economics, v. 49, Iss. 34–36, pp. 3560–78, Database: EconLit with Full Text. Retrieved from http://www.ashford.edu
Hendricks, Perry; Bioethics, (2019). Article — questions and answers, research ISSN: 0269–9702. Retrieved from http://www.ashford.edu
Lewis, Andrew R. (2014). Politics & Religion; Cambridge Vol. 7, Iss. 3, 521–549. Retrieved from http://www.ashford.edu
Perreira, Krista M.; Johnston, Emily M.; Shartzer, Adele; Yin, Sophia; (2020).American Journal of Public Health, 110(7): 1039–1045. 7p. Retrieved from http://www.ashford.edu