Political scientists often call abortion an "easy" issue. That is, most people know where they stand, and they are not likely to change their minds. But is abortion really "easy"? In this section, you will see where the two ethical "camps" of abortion (the so-called pro-choice and pro-life factions) fall on therapetuic abortion in particular.
Pro-choice
In regard to therapeutic abortion, those who are pro-choice retain their view that a woman should have a right to abortion. For instance, if a pro-choice advocate argues that a woman should be able to have an abortion for any reason, it certainly follows that a woman should be able to have a therapeutic abortion. Some argue that pro-choice is actually the pro-life side because therapeutic abortions save lives.
Pro-life
The pro-life side is often supported by religious doctrine. Various religions, notably Christianity, hold that the fetus is a human life, and to abort the fetus would be to commit murder, a sin. But even the religious have made expections for therapeutic abortions. As Father Stephen F. Torraco, a Catholic priest, explains, "It is important to distinguish direct from indirect abortion. Direct abortion is never morally justifiable. Indirect abortion is the unintended but unavoidable death of a child in the womb as a result of some other legitimate surgery aimed at saving the mother's life. An example of indirect abortion would be the physician's removing the mother's fallopian tube in which the child is lodged (ectopic pregnancy). Removing the fallopian tube is essential to saving the mother's life. The child will die in the fallopian tube even if the tube is not removed, but so would the mother." This mode of thought could reasonably be applied to other cases like when a woman is pregnant and has cervical cancer, requiring radiation that will kill the fetus. However, as we have seen in Chile, some on the pro-life side are unwilling to make such exceptions, at least in terms of the law.
Click here to look at sources used for this site.
|
|