JUDITH JARVIS THOMSON FULL

On the other side, pro-choice groups (see the list below) say that criminalizing abortion will lead to the deaths of many women through ' back-alley abortions' that unwanted children have a negative social impact (or conversely that abortion lowers the crime rate) and that reproductive rights are necessary to achieve the full and equal participation of women in society and the workforce. For example, pro-life advocacy groups (see the list below) sometimes claim the existence of post-abortion syndrome or a link between abortion and breast cancer, alleged medical and psychological risks of abortion. The view that abortion should in most or all circumstances be legal generally rests on the claims: (1) that women have a right to control what happens in and to their own bodies (2) that abortion is a just exercise of this right and (3) that the law should not criminalize just exercises of the right to control one's own body and its life-support functions.ДЄlthough both sides are likely to see the rights-based considerations as paramount, some popular arguments appeal to consequentialist or utilitarian considerations. The view that all or almost all abortion should be illegal generally rests on the claims: (1) that the existence and moral right to life of human beings (human organisms) begins at or near conception- fertilization (2) that induced abortion is the deliberate and unjust killing of the embryo in violation of its right to life and (3) that the law should prohibit unjust violations of the right to life. The philosophical arguments in the abortion debate are deontological or rights-based. 2.1 Arguments based on criteria for personhood.2 Philosophical argumentation on the moral issue.

Judith jarvis thomson