| Line 105: |
Line 105: |
| | One of the largest abortion providers in the United States, the Metropolitan Medical Associates of New Jersey, was shut down in 2007 by state health officials after one of its botched abortions left a 20-year-old woman in a coma for more than four weeks. She "became severely ill following the abortion and was transferred to Newark Beth Israel Medical Center where she needed blood transfusions and had her uterus removed. She also suffered a stroke due to the serious blood loss and had one of her lungs collapse."<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/state2137.html</ref> The State of New Jersey had shut down the same facility in 1993 also.<ref>''Id.''</ref> | | One of the largest abortion providers in the United States, the Metropolitan Medical Associates of New Jersey, was shut down in 2007 by state health officials after one of its botched abortions left a 20-year-old woman in a coma for more than four weeks. She "became severely ill following the abortion and was transferred to Newark Beth Israel Medical Center where she needed blood transfusions and had her uterus removed. She also suffered a stroke due to the serious blood loss and had one of her lungs collapse."<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/state2137.html</ref> The State of New Jersey had shut down the same facility in 1993 also.<ref>''Id.''</ref> |
| | __TOC__ <!--Do not remove this. We want to keep the insights on the first screen of viewing--> | | __TOC__ <!--Do not remove this. We want to keep the insights on the first screen of viewing--> |
| | + | |
| | + | ==Arguments On Abortion== |
| | + | ===Right to One's Body=== |
| | + | The Pro-Choice movement likes to say that women should have a right to one's body. However, such a right should logically not allow one to harm others with that body, including physical assault, murder, rape, or theft. As Hugh V. McLachlan of Glasgow Caledonian University pointed out in 1997, there is no entitlement to one's body and "we have rights duties, liabilities, restrictions and |
| | + | disadvantages as well as rights concerning our own bodies." |
| | + | {{cquote|"Consider the assumption at issue in the abstract: 'That particular X is your X and, therefore, you are entitled to do what you want with it'. As a matter of pure logic, the claim is an absurdity. What if 'X' stands for a Thompson Machine Gun? Should we say: 'That is your machine gun and, therefore, you can do whatever you like with it?' On the contrary, although there might be some things which you and only you can of right do to and with the gun, if that particular machine gun is your machine gun then it is incumbent upon you in particular to ensure that certain things are not done with it. Is the situation any different when 'X' pertains to one's body or to parts of it? I do not think so." |
| | + | -Hugh V. McLachlan, ''Glasgow Caledonian University''.<ref>McLachlan, H.V. (1997). [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1377347/ Bodies, Rights, and Abortions]. Journal of Medical Ethics. Vol. 23. p. 176.}} |
| | | | |
| | ==History== | | ==History== |