Abortion Argumentative Analysis

Words: 1219
Pages: 5

652,639. In 2014, that is how many legally induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas (“Reproductive Health”). These abortions were performed for multiple reasons, but when it comes down to it, why does a woman need a reason to do something with her body? Why do women have to justify their actions to others who shouldn’t have any control in what they do? History has proven what measures women have to take when safe, clinical abortions are not accessible to them, and the decisions regarding abortions are being made by men in higher positions. Sexual equality must be shown by providing women with a safe abortion option because what a women does with her body is her choice.
There are many reasons that women throughout time
…show more content…
This is an inhumane way of looking at abortion. By solely focusing on the fetus’ life, they completely ignore the women’s right to her life and body. Imagine a society consisting of two citizens and a government. One of the citizens is a man who has kidney failure and will die unless he receives a kidney transplant. The other citizen is a woman who is a healthy potential organ donor. The question posed by the argument is: would the government be right to force the woman to donate a kidney to the man? Most people’s reaction is to say no. When it comes down to it the man is not entitled to the kidney in any way. The woman has the right to exercise ownership over her kidney by refusing to donate the organ for the sustenance of another, even if it means that a person with intrinsic value will die. By denying the man the kidney, the argument also runs into that, it would also be wrong for the government to force a pregnant woman to donate her uterus for the sustenance of a fetus even if it means that the fetus will die as a result of that refusal (“The Kidney Donation Argument”). By comparing abortion to a kidney transplant, it is clear to see that the argument of pro-life is unreasonable because, “No one has the right to use another’s body as a life support system without her consent” (Cozic and Petrikin