The general view on abortion is a three-part statement. First, it is wrong to kill a human being. Second, a fetus is a human being. And third, it is therefore wrong to kill a fetus. This idea is one that is shared by pro-life people. They look at the raw fact of the situation: an abortion is murder. How could anyone justify the killing of an innocent fetus? To be killed before having one fair chance at

The Catholic Church belongs to this group of pro-life believers. They believe that we were all created in God's image, and because of His decision to create us. They would argue that if a fetus exists, it is because God has some sort of a reason why. To kill this fetus would be to go against the will of God. The church has an esteemed reverence for the dignity of life. They are openly against killing a fetus for mostly all cases, with very few exceptions. The primary exception would be a situation where the mother's life was in jeopardy, and the only way for her to survive is to abort the fetus. Even though the church would usually be against an abortion in mostly all other situations, it would most likely allow such an exception to take place if the abortion was absolutely necessary for the mother's survival.

To equate this opinion with my view on abortion is simple. I feel that if a woman is impregnated against her will, either by rape or some other form of forced pregnancy, she has the unrestricted opportunity to choose what to do with the fetus. Becoming pregnant from a rape incident obviously shows that the woman assumed no responsibility for a possible pregnancy. Having sex was against her will entirely, and if she hadn't had sex she wouldn't be pregnant. If she wants to have an abortion in this case, her choice should be granted immediately. I feel that the fetus does have a right to life, but in these extreme cases the mother's right to decide what happens in or to her body outweighs that right.

Before, I briefly touched upon the issue of the mother's life being in jeopardy, and the Catholic Church's position on that matter. I would like to offer my own opinion on that same issue. Again I choose to cite an example from J.J. Thomson' article in Ethics: History, Theory, and Contemporary Issues. She offers a hypothetical scenario where the mother's life will be terminated if she goes through with the childbirth. In this situation it is inevitable that either the mother or the fetus will have to die. Thomson says that they both have a right to life, and it would be difficult to say who has more of a right to life than the other does. However, she says that by adding the mother's right to determine what happens in and to her body, the sum of her rights outweighs the sum of the fetus'. I agree with her again in this situation. The mother is already a fully functioning, living human being. She has a life in which she obviously has at least one connection with some other human being. For her to be forced to sacrifice such a life for the sole purpose of avoiding an abortion is ludicrous. Once again, I am not denying the fetus' right to life, I am simply recognizing that I believe the mother's right to life outweighs it.

She then offers an example of a somewhat similar situation. In this example, one person is suffering from a deadly kidney ailment.

Some common words found in the essay are:
Contemporary Issues, PB Person, Little Abortion, Jarvis Thomson, Catholic Church, Catholic Church's, birth control, mother's life, PA Person, decide happens, pa's life, JJ Thomson', fair chance, form birth, happens body, wrong kill, form birth control, mother's life jeopardy, killing fetus, decide happens body, gray comes, decide happen body, save pa's life,
Approximate Word count = 1956
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page double spaced)