Many medical professionals are against parental
consent laws because they believe that the teens should have the right to confidential healthcare just like someone who is
over the age of eighteen.
In addition to parental consent laws, there is a law concerning partial-birth abortions.
If she would have listened to the doctor, she would have missed out on another
blessing which now has three children of his own.
Last, pro-life and pro-choice activists differ in their opinions concerning how politics and religion play a role in abortions.
Although partial-birth abortions only account for 1.3
percent of the total number of abortions performed in the United States, it is a step toward success for anti-abortionists and a
step back for pro-abortionists.
Regardless of what the doctors
said, she did not have any abnormal complications in her pregnancy that would have required an abortion in the first place,
and my uncle was born healthy and normal.
at Elliot Institute referred to as “Psychological Reactions
Reported After Abortion,” women who had at least one abortion as a teen reported that they dealt with nightmares, guilt, fear
of punishment from God, thoughts about the child they could have had, didn’t have professional counseling, the memory of
the abortion did not fade with time, and many more reactions.
I have in effect dealt (briefly) with this argument in section 4 above; but a (still briefer) recapitulation now may be in order. Surely we do not have any such "special responsibility" for a person unless we have assumed it, explicitly or implicitly. If a set of parents do not try to prevent pregnancy, do not obtain an abortion, but rather take it home with them, then they have assumed responsibility for it, they have given it rights, and they cannot now withdraw support from it at the cost of its life because they now find it difficult to go on providing for it. But if they have taken all reasonable precautions against having a child, they do not simply by virtue of their biological relationship to the child who comes into existence have a special responsibility for it. They may wish to assume responsibility for it, or they may not wish to. And I am suggesting that if assuming responsibility for it would require large sacrifices, then they may refuse. A Good Samaritan would not refuse--or anyway, a Splendid Samaritan, if the sacrifices that had to be made were enormous. But then so would a Good Samaritan assume responsibility for that violinist; so would Henry Fonda, if he is a Good Samaritan, fly in from the West Coast and assume responsibility for me.
The first thing to be saidabout this is that it is something new. Opponents of abortion have been soconcerned to make out the independence of the fetus, in order to establish thatit has a right to life, just as its mother does, that they have tended tooverlook the possible support they might gain from making out that the fetus isdependent on the mother, in order to establish that she has a special kind ofresponsibility for it, a responsibility that gives it rights against her whichare not possessed by any independent person--such as an ailing violinist who isa stranger to her.
But it might be argued thatthere are other ways one can have acquired a right to the use of anotherperson's body than by having been invited to use it by that person. Suppose awoman voluntarily indulges in intercourse, knowing of the chance it will issuein pregnancy, and then she does become pregnant; is she not in part responsiblefor the presence, in fact the very existence, of the unborn person inside? Nodoubt she did not invite it in. But doesn't her partial responsibility for itsbeing there itself give it a right to the use of her body? If so, then heraborting it would be more like the boys taking away the chocolates, and lesslike your unplugging yourself from the violinist--doing so would be deprivingit of what it does have a right to, and thus would be doing it an injustice.
Since it has been
scientifically proven that women who have had abortions demonstrate more psychological problems than women who have
not had an abortion, women should not be told otherwise in order to sugarcoat the woman’s decision when considering to
terminate the pregnancy.
On the other hand, pro-life supporters claim that abortions cause regret, depression, are dangerous, and cause
complications in later pregnancies.
According to “Abortion Safer than Childbirth, British Doctors’
Group Wants Women to Know” written by Delia Lloyd, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (RCOG) has
written two recommendations to doctors, nurses, and any other medical professional who takes part in the woman’s
pregnancy to follow.
The difficulty I point tohere is not peculiar to the right of life. It reappears in connection with allthe other natural rights, and it is something which an adequate account ofrights must deal with. For present purposes it is enough just to draw attentionto it. But I would stress that I am not arguing that people do not have a rightto life--quite to the contrary, it seems to me that the primary control we mustplace on the acceptability of an account of rights is that it should turn outin that account to be a truth that all persons have a right to life. I amarguing only that having a right to life does not guarantee having either aright to be given the use of or a right to be allowed continued use of anotherperson s body--even if one needs it for life itself. So the right to life willnot serve the opponents of abortion in the very simple and clear way in whichthey seem to have thought it would.
I suppose that in some viewsof human life the mother's body is only on loan to her, the loan not being onewhich gives her any prior claim to it. One who held this view might well thinkit impartiality to say "I cannot choose." But I shall simply ignorethis possibility. My own view is that if a human being has any just, priorclaim to anything at all, he has a just, prior claim to his own body. Andperhaps this needn't be argued for here anyway, since, as I mentioned, thearguments against abortion we are looking at do grant that the woman has aright to decide what happens in and to her body. But although they do grant it,I have tried to show that they do not take seriously what is done in granting it.I suggest the same thing will reappear even more clearly when we turn away fromcases in which the mother's life is at stake, and attend, as I propose we nowdo, to the vastly more common cases in which a woman wants an abortion for someless weighty reason than preserving her own life.