Retrieved from https://studentshare.org/philosophy/1691011-discussion
https://studentshare.org/philosophy/1691011-discussion.
The justification for the exception is harm caused by pregnancy. In the case of rape, a woman has lived through a tragedy and would have to put up with psychological and, probably physiological traumas that can persist for years. So it can be of vital importance to restore control over the personal body and will after the rape occurred. Moreover, pregnancy can aggravate psychological trauma and continue undermining the emotional health of a woman who would be forced to bear a constant remaining of tragedy. Similarly, Lee and George mention that justification for abortion is often found when the pregnancy poses a real threat to a woman’s health. In this case, the life of a woman is given priority over the life of a fetus since it would be wrong to force a woman to risk her life while denying her the right to make a decision and save herself.
As for me, the most compelling argument is that abortion brings much more harm than pregnancy. In contrast to other arguments that touch upon rights of a woman versus the rights of a child, which are difficult to evaluate in terms of who suffers more, this argument is more objective. The rationale is simple: abortion presupposes death while pregnancy can bring inconveniences and pain for a period of time. Subsequently, keeping in mind that death is the worse outcome, it can be viewed as both the argument against abortion and justification for it, in case it will save the life of a woman. Here, however, arises another dilemma: what is more important to save a child or to save a woman?
Read More