Response to Natalie's Abortion Counter Arguments Blog

http://npustinalsc100s10.blogspot.com/

In her blog, Natalie chose to address whether abortion is a moral practice or not. She immediately reveals her stance on the matter as pro choice. She qualifies this though by saying she is pro-choice because no child should be raised in an environment where they do not have the opportunity to be happy. This leaves two questions unanswered for me however. If the woman does have the means to raise a child happily, but does not feel the desire to have a baby, does Natalie find it appropriate to have an abortion? Furthermore, if a woman cannot raise a child in a healthy environment, is it the mother’s responsibility to abort the child?

The pro-life article that Natalie references identifies an inconsistency in the law. They find that it is unfair for a criminal to be charged twice for beating a pregnant woman, once for the woman and once for the unborn baby. If the unborn baby is treated as a recognizable individual, how if it that a woman cannot be charged for “killing” the developing fetus.

The second article brought to refute this argument was a pro-choice article, which considers the scientific evidence. During the first trimester, the fetus is dependent on the mother. The developing baby cannot live independently from the mother, so it is still a part of her. In addition, the nervous system is not developed at this time, so it has yet the ability to feel.

I myself am pro-choice. I find that a woman undergoes certain changes when she becomes pregnant so she has the right to control those. This is a matter of right to privacy of her body, and I believe that during the first trimester, while the baby is yet recognizable as an independent individual, the woman should have the right to choose. In response to the pro-life argument, I would argue that if the woman is carrying the baby knowingly, she most likely has the intent to give birth. Abusing her baby would damage the baby and curtail her pursuit of happiness, Thus charging the criminal twice would be appropriate,