Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Pro life and pro choice debates
Pro-Life Speeches
Pro-life arguments
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Pro life and pro choice debates
establishes women have no other role than mothers. As such, this construction of ‘motherhood’ limits women’s opportunities and capabilities because the dialogue does not give women the room to fulfill any other role.
The “Good” Woman
The arguments within the pro-life dialogue all point towards the development of a ‘good’ woman within the traditional framework. This image that is portrayed has distinct ramifications for pro-choice discourse. First, it is important to understand that the definition of ‘good’ by the pro-life community is achieved, in part, by maintaining the status quo. For example, women are expected to fulfill their biological destiny without “challenging the traditional roles extended to her of teacher, secretary, nurse,
…show more content…
In an article in the Globe and Mail Jane Cawthorne asserts “there is still a strong link between the image of the good woman and the image of the good mother. If you are not going to be a mother, if you dare to be childless by choice or end a pregnancy, you are not only unmotherly, but also unwomanly” (Globe and Mail, 2010). There is such a negative connotation associated with being childless or having an abortion that an atmosphere of shame and embarrassment is created. The atmosphere is furthered by pro-life dialogue by portraying abortion as unnatural and unfeminine. These ideas succeed in creating an anti-abortion climate because ‘good’ women and ‘good’ mothers would never undertake something that is seen as unnatural and unfeminine. …show more content…
When women are homogenized the complex realities of their lives are silenced. This is problematic, again, because pro-life dialogue is ignoring a whole other facet of abortion. Instead they focus only on taking away access from women, instead of looking beyond the surface to really understand the real issues surrounding abortion.
Third, the pro-women facet of pro-life dialogue projects women as victims who are ‘taken advantage of’ by abortionists, their husbands/partners, and their families. This view undermines women’s capabilities as an autonomous beings to make rational, informed decisions as well as projecting them as weak and unable to stand up for themselves. It also shifts the focus of blame from women and their choice to have an abortion to the institution. These are both problematic firstly because women become
The topic on abortion gives a moral objection to a fetus’ right to life, while it is questionable whether or not the death of the unborn child is unjustifiable. Although it may seem as if abortion puts women in situations where it is necessary to save the mother’s life in some situations. Until both pro-life and pro-choice can come to a conclusion and an agreement, this debates on abortion will continually go on. Both sides need to be able to draw the line somewhere and balance each other’s weakness.
...ofeminists and pacifist feminists take to be characteristically masculine; it shows a willingness to use violence in order to take control. The fetus is destroyed by being pulled apart by suction, cut in pieces, or poisoned." Wolf-Devine goes on to point out that "in terms of social thought . . . it is the masculine models which are most frequently employed in thinking about abortion. If masculine thought is naturally hierarchical and oriented toward power and control, then the interests of the fetus (who has no power) would naturally be suppressed in favor of the interests of the mother. But to the extent that feminist social thought is egalitarian, the question must be raised of why the mother's interests should prevail over the child's . . . . Feminist thought about abortion has . . . been deeply pervaded by the individualism which they so ardently criticize."32
In order to understanding how women have been discriminated against we must know the history behind the most controversial topic in women’s rights, abortion. For decade’s legal scholars, social movement activities, and historians, have agreed whether women actually had rights when it came to abortions and understanding the pro-life feminist reform. In Mary Zeigler, "Women's Rights on the Right: The History and Stakes of Modern Pro-Life Feminism.” Pro-life advocates have argued that “abortions cause more to the woman rather than help them.” (Zeigler233) One of the most popular known cases is Gonzales v. Carhart which attempted to justify abortion restrictions on the very basis of the physical or psychological harms that could or assumed to be caused or produced by the actual procedure.(Zeigler234) However, women protective claims, only one part of larger strategy that this Article calls prolife feminism. The article also identifies potential common ground among those proclaiming to be feminist with different positions on abortions. Both pro-choice and pro-life scholars have written extensively on how to their arguments as forwarding women
In Judith Jarvis Thompson’s article “A Defense of Abortion” she explores the different arguments against abortion presented by Pro –Life activists, and then attempts to refute these notions using different analogies or made up “for instances” to help argue her point that women do have the right to get an abortion. She explains why abortion is morally permissible using different circumstances of becoming pregnant, such as rape or unplanned pregnancy.
Pro life vs. pro choice is a very sensitive subject to argue among a crowd. A large number of advantages and disadvantages leave individuals in an uproar while explaining their stance. Views on religion, myths, and unfit mothers show different arguments to each opposing side. Alternatives to abortion and the future aspects have shown many different pieces about pro life and pro choice. To start, pro life arguments will be stated along with the writer’s opinions. Finally, the writer’s opinions on the subject following pro choice disputes. This provides a clear understanding between the two opposing topics.
“She may be unmarried or in a bad marriage. She may consider herself too poor to raise a child. She may think her life is too unstable or unhappy, or she may think that her drinking or drug use will damage the baby’s health” (126). The emotional appeal in this paragraph could make the reader think they are pro-choice. Apart from their use of pathos, the authors do a great job using a mixture of both ethos and logos. Page 130 is an example of both, which were used expertly to help the reader understand their point of view and the
Pro-choice versus pro-life argues over the issue of what should be the right stance when dealing with the life of an unborn child. From the perspective of a person who is pro-choice, they believe that “individuals have unlimited autonomy with respect to their own reproductive systems, just as long as they don’t violate the independence of others.” Pro-choice also argues that the government should not have the right to decide whether a woman should exterminate her pregnancy or not. From their viewpoint, they believe that what should be legal in the eyes of the government is contraception use, celibacy, abstinence, and abortion for the first two trimesters of pregnancy. On the stance of pro-life, they argue that the government has a right to protect this regardless of any situation.
One of the most disputed subjects into day’s society is abortion. Children have been sacrificed by millions of women all across the world. There’s always a powerful urge to vindicate the suffering, emotional pain, and deprivation by the mother and her significant other. Therefore, in any debate, you will run up against an invisible brick wall. Which means even the greatest Knowledge will neglect to influence. When it comes to abortion the best way to tackle the subject is through facts. Some of the wondrous arguments stem from the law, science, and the rights women have to aid the pro-life case opposed to abortion.
Anger and heated debate have long fueled the controversy over abortion. Whether pro-life or pro-choice, both sides of the argument are convinced of the righteousness of their beliefs. There is, however, some confusion surrounding the term “pro-choice” – it does not directly pertain to the spread and use of abortion, but rather, “pro-choicers” advocate the continued legalization of abortion in order to make the choice available and to ensure that women’s fundamental rights are not subjugated. The stance that abortion should be available has its roots in economic concerns, psychological evidence, moral dilemmas, and the Constitution.
When looking at the development of abortion policy, it is clear that it has always been a subject of controversy. Campaigns for the legalisation of...
In the case of Sarah Grosvenor and Amasa Sessions it is evident the roles that society and gender played in the decision of abortion. Sarah lost her life because in that era you could not openly discuss the issue of abortion, and Sessions was praised because he pushed for the abortion and would not bring a bastard child in the world. Abortion still remains today a very controversial topic, and one that many people are not accepted no matter what their view is on the subject. There still remains pressure from many people in society and today’s culture to persuade one’s opinion and decision on abortion. Although it is not talked about, other than people protesting against, or for their rights, it is a legal act, and ultimately the decision of the woman.
One of the most controversial issues in society today is abortion, and as of now, it is morally acceptable because of Roe vs Wade. However, when a study conducted by Minnesota reveals that women who have had an abortion have 10 times the risk of committing suicide than women who have not had an abortion, it’s time to seriously think about whether or not abortion should be acknowledged as morally right. Considered by some to be a form of murder, anti-abortion laws should apply to all women in order to prevent any emotional mishaps of the abortion victim and to save the lives of the innocent human beings not yet born. Pro-Choice advocates believe that abortion should be legalized because they feel it is necessary to empower women with choice. They have strong opinions that women are not subordinate, so they ought to be allowed to make moral decisions and should not be forced to have a child, but why should the child have to suffer for the wrongdoings of his mother?
Over the course of the last century, abortion in the Western hemisphere has become a largely controversial topic that affects every human being. In the United States, at current rates, one in three women will have had an abortion by the time they reach the age of 45. The questions surrounding the laws are of moral, social, and medical dilemmas that rely upon the most fundamental principles of ethics and philosophy. At the center of the argument is the not so clear cut lines dictating what life is, or is not, and where a fetus finds itself amongst its meaning. In an effort to answer the question, lawmakers are establishing public policies dictating what a woman may or may not do with regard to her reproductive rights.
The permissibility of abortion has been a crucial topic for debates for many years. People have yet to agree upon a stance on whether abortion is morally just. This country is divided into two groups, believers in a woman’s choice to have an abortion and those who stand for the fetus’s right to live. More commonly these stances are labeled as pro-choice and pro-life. The traditional argument for each side is based upon whether a fetus has a right to life. Complications occur because the qualifications of what gives something a right to life is not agreed upon. The pro-choice argument asserts that only people, not fetuses, have a right to life. The pro-life argument claims that fetuses are human beings and therefore they have a right to life. Philosopher, Judith Jarvis Thomson, rejects this traditional reasoning because the right of the mother is not brought into consideration. Thomson prepares two theses to explain her reasoning for being pro-choice; “A right to life does not entail the right to use your body to stay alive” and “In the majority of cases it is not morally required that you carry a fetus to term.”
Most people agree that abortion should be a rare procedure. To accomplish that ideal, our society must proactively, by providing resources and support, offer pregnant women the hope that carrying their babies to term is not the end of their plans and dreams. Then their difficult decisions would really be true choices vice acts of desperation. After all, it is just as much “pro-choice” for a woman to take charge of her life and courageously carr...