Why abortion and the Right to Life

Abortion and Social Contribution See Appendix - Arguments From the Living Member The issue of abortion is full of emotions and this often leads to serious, well-thought-out arguments. The questions “Are abortions really immoral” and “Are abortions really that bad” often get confused? Pregnancy (and the resulting fetus) are discussed in terms of force that are usually reserved for natural disasters (force majeure). At times, an embryo is likened to a cancer, a thief, or an invader: after all, they are both plants, cells. The difference, of course, is that no one gets cancer voluntarily (except, to some extent, smokers - but then they gamble, not contract). If a woman has voluntary  does not use contraceptives and is pregnant - one can say that she has signed a contract with her child. The contract encompasses the proven existence of free (and reasonable) free will. If the fulfillment of the obligations in an agreement between individuals could endanger lives - it is safe and secure to assume that no free will is involved. No rational person can sign or enter into such an agreement with another person (although most people would sign such agreements with the public). Judith Jarvis Thomson argued convincingly (“Preventing Abortion”) that pregnancy as a result of forced  (rape is a special crime) or life-threatening or should, morally, be terminated. Using practical language: the contract was not made voluntarily or rationally, therefore, it is useless and futile. Any actions intended to eliminate and nullify the consequences must be legally and ethically permitted. It is the same with the contract entered into against the direct will of some of the parties despite all the appropriate steps taken by the party that does not want to block it. If the mother uses contraceptives in a contraceptive way, it is like saying: "I do not want to sign this agreement, I do my best not to sign it, if it is signed - it is against my express will". Serious problems arise when we read of one of these vague agreements: the fetus. There is little point in talking about free will (or emotional rights). So, is the contract not a contract at all? Does it not reflect the interests of the parties? The answer is negative. their services - they represent the embryo in the same way that they represent children, the mentally handicapped, and the insane. The community intervenes - and has a recognized right and a moral obligation - whenever the parties' contractual powers (explicit or implicit) are not equal. It protects young citizens from high-profile, physically weakened criminals, from minor opposition from powerful bosses, and a radio station that has barely escaped the ravages of a devastating system of government. It also has the right and obligation to intervene, mediate and represent the unconscious: which is why euthanasia is strictly prohibited without the consent of the deceased. There is not much difference between embryo and comatosis. A common contract means the rights of parties. It depends on the existence of groups of "moral people" or "moral people" - in other words, people who have rights and who may want us to respect these rights. Contracts explicitly define some of these rights and leave others unspecified due to the alleged existence of a Public Contract. A general contract assumes that there is a public contract that applies to contract parties and is internationally recognized, and, as a result, is clearly included throughout the contract. Thus, a clear contract can cover the rights of another person, while ignoring that person's right to life, free speech, enjoy the fruits of his or her legal property and, often in a happy life. There is little arguing that Mom is a morally important person and that she owns rights. All people born are adults and, moreover, all adults over a certain age. But what about the unborn? One way is that the fetus has no rights until certain conditions are met and soon after their fulfillment they are transformed into a morally important person (“moral act”). Opinions vary as to what conditions. Rationality, or meaning and purpose in life, is one of the most frequently cited terms. The lies of this debate are easy to prove: children are irrational - is this a license to kill children? The second method states that man has the right to life because he desires it. But what about the chronically depressed who wish to die - do we have the right to end their miserable lives? The best part of life (and, therefore, a unique and meaningful test) is still the experience itself - not the desire for experience. Another difference is that a person has the right to life because once his life is cut short - the things he experiences end. So, how should we judge the right to life of a person who is constantly enduring a bad experience (and, as a result, dying)? Should they be better “cut off”? After reviewing the above arguments and controversies, Don Marquis goes on to say (“Why Abortion Is Dirty”, 1989) to offer a sharp and broader point: ending life is morally wrong because one has a full future and that is, like ours. But not all debate is necessary