I agree with natural theorists that abortion disrupts nature, primarily with regard to the purpose of the unborn child. However, a woman has a natural responsibility for preserving the life of the unborn child. Despite the current controversial debate, abortion should be discouraged because it risks the lives of the mother and unborn child.
However, a conventional interpretation of abortion laws is required to clear the present conflict between criminal laws and abortion laws. It is correct that criminalization of women in the United States is attributable to criminal laws, but not necessarily the abortion Act. Ideally, abortion regulations are meant to regulate the manner in which abortion is performed to protect the dignity of a woman.
The recent appellate judgment on McCormack v Hiedeman’s case, in which the U.S. Court of Appeal expounded on the precepts of abortion laws, explains this aspect.
Prochaska reports “the court found the historical purpose for regulating abortion had been to protect, rather than punish women and held that abortion laws should not be used to prosecute a woman for aborting her child” (par. 6). Therefore, it appears correct that a woman has a natural right to get an abortion.
The first reason as to why a woman has a natural right to get an abortion can be provided by the existence of the right-to-life provision in natural and legal laws. Both sides acknowledge a woman’s right-to-life although they construe diverse perspectives. Ideally, the right-to-life principle accords a woman with personal dignity.
Therefore, a woman’s decision to have an abortion should be considered as one of the most fundamental aspects of protecting her dignity. It is correct that any right implies voluntariness, so a woman portrays willingness by seeking for an abortion (Kainz par. 10). However, a woman’s right to get an abortion becomes compromised when limits are introduced; either through legal frameworks or moral ethics.
For instance, a woman’s natural right to get an abortion seems to have been compromised by the existence of misleading interpretations of the precepts of moral ethics. It is correct that the current society views abortion from the moral perspective which accords some dignity to the unborn child. Instead, a woman’s natural right to get an abortion can be understood if the society considered the dignity of the mother.
Nevertheless, the fact that a woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy explains her voluntariness; thus, giving her a natural right to get an abortion.
Abortion has created immense controversy in the society because it has never been given a universal definition. In most cases, debates seeking to define the limits of abortion have always revolved around the dignity of the unborn child, but not its mother’s dignity. As a result, a woman’s natural right to get an abortion has always been compromised even though the right-to-life connects the issue with societal norms and values.
Secondly, a woman appears to have a natural right to get an abortion because there has never been a universal agreement on the beginning of an individual’s life. It has been a long way for theorists to unravel the mysteries of life and abortion has been one of the most challenging phenomena related to life in the universe.
Today, there are different philosophies, which attempt to define the beginning of life and most of them dwell on the existence of the fetus, but that does not seem to clear the mystery of life.
Therefore, it is quite unfair to deny a woman her natural right to get an abortion on the grounds of the dignity of the unborn child. It is surprising that the society accords dignity to the unborn child and yet it does not have any control over the success of pregnancy.
On the other hand, a woman has a natural right to get an abortion because the decision to care for the child is determined by her voluntariness. It is quite interesting to see the society criminalizing abortion and yet it expects a woman to accept the right of caring for her child. Ordinarily, parental care to a child is a right provided by a woman out of her willingness.
Therefore, a woman cannot be forced to give this right to her child. In case a woman is not willing to provide the caring right to her child, then abortion seems to be the only right for a woman which improves the quality of her life. Moreover, abortion is one of the most significant health issues related to a woman’s reproductive choice. It is a personal decision; hence it falls under a woman’s natural right.
In a brief conclusion, it is correct that a woman has a natural right to get an abortion because it is a personal decision. Despite the moral dilemmas involved in the issue of abortion, the society should acknowledge a woman’s dignity and right to control her body (Prayson par. 1). However, it is worth noting that societal and legal approaches should aim at providing solutions to the dangers of unsafe abortions.
Works Cited
Kainz, Howard. “Natural Law and Abortion.” Crisis Magazine 6 Jan. 2010. Web.
Prayson, Daniel. “Abortion: A Woman’s Right to Control Her Body?” Live Action News 9 Sept. 2013. Web.
Prochaska, Elizabeth. Re: Sarah Catt, Abortion and the Legal Rights of Pregnant Women 21 Sept. 2012. Web.