Pro Live Vs. Pro Choice
The choice between life and loss has been a battle on this earth for quite some time. Many will say that life is initiated at conception rather than when a baby receives first breath at birth. These people are usually pro-choice when it comes to abortion. It is usually perceived by them that to destroy an embryo, fetus or zygote is the equivalent of killing a living being. From this ethical utilitarianism standpoint any annihilation is considered ethically and morally immoral. Proceeding to so not only is considered to be without cause by any benefits to others through scientific advancement or, in the case of abortion, by ending the discomfort of a woman with a probably unplanned or unwanted pregnancy, the only supposed benefit is at the expense of what can be considered a life. Euthanasia and assisted suicide is also conflict with the pro-life activists. Frequently they base being pro choice on religious beliefs that life is sacred and must be protected even against the wishes of a person who is suffering or wants to end their life for their specified reason. (The ethics of abortion, 1996)
On the other hand, Pro-choice activists have their beliefs also. Unlike pro life activists they don’t make their decision on religious terms. Their beliefs are that women should be able to decide and to have right of use to safe and legal abortion and, also, that women should be sheltered from mandatory unwanted abortions. Abortion can be seen as a last alternative, especially if focused on certain situations where the need of an abortion is an essential opportunity. Situations include those where the woman’s health, life or that of the fetus/embryo/zygote is at risk or she was raped, the method contraception was used but wasn’t successful, or feels for whatever reason she is incapable of raising a child. Although some pro-choice campaigners, on the other hand to accept limitations on abortion, feeling that political practicality compels them to...
View Full Essay
