The problem of abortion concerns the social, political, and moral aspects of life. This problem has not been decided up until now. There are still people who believe that depriving the child of life before its birth is not legal and is also a religious crime (Boonin 2003). There also exist people who do not recognize the abortion and believing that the life begins from the very conception. The articles under consideration present two opposite ideas and provide two different supporting and justifying arguments. Both articles are connected with the legacy of carrying out abortions but each one supports different views concerning the validity of abortions and the main reasons for that.
Thus, Telzrow (2008) describes the necessity for legitimacy of abortion considering that by means of it the amount of abortions will be reduced in that way. The problem of legitimacy takes its roots in science and history since there was a problem whether to consider a fetus as a human who has the right to live or not. Both articles are concerned with issue regarding that problem from different angles. Thus Thomson (1971) insists on the fact there is no life until the birth of the child since it can proved but only accepted as a truth. In the opposing article, there are points that consider that problem from a scientific point of view. Hence, Telzrow (2008) traces the cases of abortion in the eighteenth century. Then, it was assumed that the abortion was possible when there some feature of life like movement. If there were no movements, the fetus was not regarded as alive. Gradually, the abortion was subjected to the law rejecting it. The history of abortion witnessed “that millions of women suffered injury or death at the hands of abortionists operating illegally”.
Thomson describes the cases when the abortion should be legally accepted when the conception is the outcome of the sexual abuse. In this respect, he stands in favor of women who suffered from the act of violence. The article justifies the abortion as “exception for a pregnancy due to rape” He insists on the fact that “persons have a right to life if they didn’t come into existence because of rape”. Though the statement is a bit outright, it could not be judged as the by the persons who are not the “product of rape”. This concept is also supported by the Tezlrow who also admits the legal permission on abortion “in case of rape, incest, feta abnormality, and to secure the health of the mother” (Telzrow 2008). Unfortunately, the consideration of this law started only in the sixties of the last century. Further on the medical association who accepted the reasonableness of abortions.
Thomson also enlarges upon the obligatory reasons of abortions in case of the poor health of the mother. In this case, the problem is aggravated as two lives are in danger: child’s life and the life of mother. Thus, he thoroughly considers the problem from the theological point of view. On the one hand, the unborn child is an innocent person and killing it may be considered as a murder. On the other hand, mother’s health is subjected to the risk of death as well in case she decides not to resort to abortion. However, in case the decision was made in favor of it, it may also do harm to the mother’s health (Thomson 1971).
Tezlrow considers the opposite view. In fact, he believes that abortion is a risk and had no benefits by all means. It breaks not only laws invented by people but the natural laws that constitute the priority of human life. He gives the examples of the abortion-related deaths and injures. According to the statistics, the number of such death in 1960 was about 1,579 (Telzrow 2008). The author expresses his indignation for abortion to be considered as misdemeanor.
The history of abortion witnessed that “millions of women suffered injury or death at the hands of abortionists operating illegally”.
Another question arises concerning the handicapped unborn children as an excuse for abortion. And again, the articles take the opposite positions. Thus, Tezlrow believes that a child with defects is also a child and he is also a human, and, therefore he has the right to live. The problem is whether the ground of the child’s defects was mother’s fault and a fault of the nature. Anyway, mother, guilty or not, has not the right to kill his child just because she does not want to take this burden.
In conclusion, both articles have their specific views on the abortion. The Telzrow works is a bit contradictory in this respect since he takes a position that is more liberal. Anyway, most of his arguments criticize the abortion referring to it as a legal crime. Hence, Thomson, is more liberal, and admits infanticide in some justified situations. In other words, he recognizes, that there are rare cases when the abortion is only way out.
Reference
Boonin, D. (2003). A Defense of Abortion. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Telzrow, M. E. (2008). Before Roe V. Wade: Attitudes against Abortion Developed Slowly in America, but by 1900, Every State in the Union Had Anti-Abortion Laws. It Took a Liberal Onslaught (and Roe V. Wade) to Reverse This. The New American, 24, 34+.
Thomson, J. J. (1971). A Defense of Abortion Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol 1. pp. 69-80.