Analogy: A boy and his brother are given a box of chocolates for Christmas. If the older brother takes the box and doesn’t share, than that is considered unjust because the boy isn’t giving what was supposed to be given to his brother. This isn’t unjust, however, because he owns all the chocolates. This is like abortion because the person who is using the women’s body doesn’t have a right to do so.
In my own worldview, I believe that the author is wrong here. For one, a boy refusing to share a box of chocolates with his brother is nowhere in-line with abortion. It’s a rather incomparable analogy. While the boy doesn’t give his brother a box of chocolates, does that mean his brother will die? However, if a mother doesn’t give her child the right to her body in terms of nutrients, does that mean her son or daughter will die? The author looks at this rather concretely and doesn’t take in consideration the abstract meaning behind abortion. While the author probably doesn’t see the child, or sac of eggs as she would probably call it, as a human being while inside the womb, a lot of people would choose to disagree. While I believe that this is a person inside the womb, I understand that a lot of people disagree. So here are some of my basic thoughts regarding this issue.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"A Defense of Abortion".
I think a question to ask when considering abortion is whether the ‘sac of cells’ can live by itself and survive outside the womb. Another question to ask is why a mother wants to get aborted. If a mother’s pregnancy risks her own health, then an abortion would be justified. Trading a life for another life is always a tough decision, but if the mother ends up dying, who will end up caring for the baby? If a mother gets sick, who will look after the child? However, if someone wants an abortion when their health isn’t at risk, why should give their convenience more thought than the life of a child?
