The issue of abortion, although it has been discussed for decades, is not becoming any less burning question, for both its advocates and opponents go on repeating the same arguments again and again. And it is only natural – it is one of these issues the perception of which may never change, no matter how different the outside world becomes. For, although scientific progress may make some things different, it never brings any alterations in ethical questions.
The proponents of abortion call themselves the “pro-choicers”, which sounds like a fantastically elaborate cynicism. What choice do they mean? It isn’t the child’s choice to be conceived; it isn’t the child’s choice to be killed. They say that only woman has the right to decide whether to keep or kill her child; applying a very peculiar shortsightedness, they pretend that the human being whose life we speak about has nothing to do with this decision. Yes, woman has choice in this matter, but it has long ago been done when the child is conceived. The woman could have chosen differently when she had made the child’s conception possible, but she didn’t – then she has no more right to decide on this life.
This sample article is the product of our essay writer.
When people talk about abortion, they speak about the power of human being over the nature and that the modern level of science’s development makes it possible to revert usual physical processes. It is, however, a rather vicious variety of doublespeak. It is not reverting, it is a violent intrusion. It is not power over nature, it is power over human beings that do already exist, but are incapable of defending themselves. If it is a felony to kill a newborn child, why is it alright to kill him or her before the birth? Something wrong with the reasoning here, but the “pro-choicers” don’t see it. They say that woman has a right to decide what to do with her body. Yet, it is not her body that she decides to destroy.
As we can see…