Source : http://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/Abortion Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability. An abortion can occur spontaneously, in which case it is usually called a miscarriage, or it can be purposely induced. The term abortion most commonly refers to the induced abortion of a human pregnancy.

Abortion: Legality
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law The legality, prevalence, cultural and religious status of abortion vary substantially around the world. Its legality can depend on specific conditions such as incest, rape, severe fetal defects or the mother's health being at risk. In many parts of the world there is prominent and divisive public controversy over the ethical and legal issues of abortion. Abortion has been a controversial subject in many societies through history because of the moral, ethical, practical, and political power issues that surround it. It has been banned frequently and otherwise limited by law. However, abortions continue to be common in many areas where they are illegal; abortion rates are similar in countries where the procedure is legal and in countries where it is not according to the World Health Organization (WHO), due to unavailability of modern contraceptives in areas where abortion is illegal. The number of abortions worldwide is declining due to increased access to contraception according to WHO. Almost 2/3 of the world's women currently reside in countries where abortion may be obtained on request for a broad range of social, economic or personal reasons. Abortion laws vary widely by country. Seven countries (in Latin America and Europe) ban the procedure entirely.

LEGAL STATUS in the Philippines Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_Philippines In Philippines, abortion is illegal or banned by rule of law. Article II of the 1987 Philippine Constitution says, in part, "Section 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The act is criminalized by the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, which was enacted in 1930 and remains in effect today. Articles 256, 258 and 259 of the Code mandate imprisonment for the woman who undergoes the abortion, as well as for any person who assists in the procedure, even if they be the woman's parents, a physician or midwife. Article 258 further imposes a higher

prison term on the woman or her parents if the abortion is undertaken "in order to conceal [the woman's] dishonor". There is no law in the Philippines that expressly authorizes abortions in order to save the woman's life; and the general provisions which do penalize abortion make no qualifications if the woman's life is endangered. It may be argued that an abortion to save the mother's life could be classified as a justifying circumstance (duress as opposed to self-defense) that would bar criminal prosecution under the Revised Penal Code. However, this has yet to be adjudicated by the Philippine Supreme Court. Proposals to liberalize Philippine abortion laws have been opposed by the Catholic Church, and its opposition has considerable influence in the predominantly Catholic country. However, the constitutionality of abortion restrictions has yet to be challenged before the Philippine Supreme Court. The present Constitution of the Philippines, adopted in 1987, pronounces as among the policies of the State that "[The State] shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception." (sec. 12, Art. II) The provision was crafted by the Constitutional Commission which drafted the charter with the intention of providing for constitutional protection of the abortion ban, although the enactment of a more definitive provision sanctioning the ban was not successful. The provision is enumerated among several state policies, which are generally regarded in law as unenforceable in the absence of implementing legislation. The 1987 RP Constitution also contains several other provisions enumerating various state policies. Whether these provisions may, by themselves, be the source of enforceable rights without implementing legislation has been the subject of considerable debate in the legal sphere and within the Supreme Court. An analysis by the Population Division of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs concluded that although the Revised Penal Code does not list specific exceptions to the general prohibition on abortion, under the general criminal law principles of necessity as set forth in article 11(4) of the Code, an abortion may be legally performed to save the pregnant womans life. ABORTION: MORALITY It is seriously wrong to kill children and infants. Source: Don Marquis Thesis (p.191) Source: http://www.montgomerycollege.edu/~bsoderbe/marquis.htm Don Marquis Thesis, "Why Abortion Is Immoral?" Marquis argues that most abortions are immoral because they deprive the fetus of a future like ours. This future-like-ours is a future of value; hence, to deny such a future is wrong.

Those opposed to abortion give a version of the premise that the fetus is a human being (looks like a human being, possesses a human genetic code). Those in favor of abortion offer a version of the premise that the fetus is not a person (or a rational agent or a social being). Each in turn relies on a second premise. Those opposed to abortion ordinarily make this second premise broad -- for example, to take human life is prima facie wrong. Those in favor of abortion identify a premise that is narrow in scope so that the fetus will not fall under it: "it is prima facie seriously wrong to kill only persons" or "it is prima facie wrong to kill only rational agents." The first of these moral premises would include the killing of cancer cells. The second would not explain why killing infants, young children, severely retarded, or the mentally ill is judged wrong. Each side attacks the other for unacceptable moral premises. Each side retreats: the anti-abortionists modify their principle to read: "to take the life of a human being is prima facie wrong." The pro-choicers extend the category "person" to young children and infants, but not to fetuses. Each is faced with arbitrariness: it seems arbitrary to categorize the fetus as a human being (since some development is ordinarily required to qualify as a human being), and it seems arbitrary to describe an infant but not a late-stage fetus as a person. "If it is legitimate for the pro-choicer to demand that the anti-abortionist provide an explanation of the connection between the biological character of being a human being and the wrongness of being killed . . . then it is legitimate for the anti-abortionist to demand that the pro-choicer provide an explanation of the connection between psychological criteria for being a person and the wrongness of being killed . . ." Source: Don Marquis Thesis (p.187) It is typically seriously wrong to kill us (adult human beings). What makes it wrong? Here's one central thing: killing us deprives us of the value of our future. It deprives us not only of what we value now and would have, given our current predilections, valued later, but also of what we would have come to value. Depriving a being of the value of a future like ours makes killing it wrong. Killing a fetus deprives it of the value of a future like ours. So killing a fetus is wrong. Source: Don Marquis Thesis: The Future-Like-Ours argument (192-193) Further support is for the view that what makes killing wrong is the loss of the victims future is garnered from implications of the view. 1. It allows for the wrongness of killing non-humans (such as space aliens with futures sufficiently like ours) 2. It does not settle the question of whether it is wrong to kill animals (but it does make the wrongness of killing animals depend on their suffering similar losses if killed.)

3. It does not entail that active euthanasia is wrong (unlike sanctity of life views) 4. It does explain the wrongness of killing infants (personhood accounts of the wrongness of killing have a hard time with infants). Source: http://bellevuecollege.edu/artshum/materials/phil/Payne/Summer04/102/MARQUISsumm04. htm

Advantages & Disadvantages

http://lifestyle.iloveindia.com/lounge/pros-and-cons-about-abortion-3403.html

Source:

In the modern world, abortions have become a norm of life. It is considered to be one of the easiest and convenient ways of getting rid of unwanted and accidental pregnancies. Though women have been endowed with the gift of bearing a life form, an abortion gives them the option whether they want to avail the present or not. However, an abortion should not be misunderstood for a convenience, as it does have its own advantages and disadvantages. As these might be subjective, any woman should consider the following pros and cons before deciding the fate of the unborn child. Advantages of anti-abortion Source: http://www.priestsforlife.org/africanamerican/economic-arguments-for-abortion.htm Abortion slows labor force growth. Abortion undermines technological innovation. Most significantly, abortion denies us the talents and the creativity of 40 million and counting unique human beings. Simon states that "in the long run, the most important economic effect of population size and growth is the contribution of additional people to our stock of useful knowledge." A larger work force provides more forums for the exchange of ideas between more minds, and allows for greater specialization. A larger and denser population furnishes bigger markets for product testing, marketing, and sales; facilitates easier communication and distribution; and offers more opportunities for research and development, a situation known as economies of scale. This results in more new products, greater diversity of products, and more opportunities for the individual who may discover something particularly important, such as the cure for cancer. Source; http://www.buzzle.com/articles/pros-and-cons-of-abortion.html The most important argument against abortion would be - can we choose to kill unwanted pregnancies? Should a person be so irresponsible to land up in a situation where they have to be merciless to the unborn? Also, most of the unplanned pregnancies if extended to childbirth may perhaps prove to be less traumatic later. A growing embryo is considered human with the heartbeats initiating as early as 21st day of conception. So what if we cannot see the human form, it does have the potential to gain one.

Choosing adoption as an alternative to abortion would give the baby its right to life. Should people resort to abortion as a last-minute contraception tool while preaching their kids about the consequences of casual sex? Infection, sepsis, recurrent miscarriages and rarely death could be the complications of abortions. An abortion can cause serious psychological impairment to the woman in the form of depression and guilt. Also, an abortion always lessens the chances of having children later in life. Though it is not a mandatory phenomenon, it can definitely happen, leaving the woman childless forever. http://www.buzzle.com/articles/pros-and-cons-of-abortion.html Disadvantages of anti-abortion Source: http://www.blurtit.com/q4553412.html We must acknowledge that abortion has significant advantages in controlling the overwhelmingly growing population. It also prevents the unwanted children to be born as parents may not be physically, mentally and financially ready. In addition to that, abortion will widen the border of freedom for women in a male dominated society. Source: http://lifestyle.iloveindia.com/lounge/pros-and-cons-about-abortion-3403.html

Many a times, abortion helps to safeguard women's health. There are many women, who suffer from various hazardous medical conditions such as heart disease, kidney disease, severe hypertension, sickle-cell anemia, severe diabetes, etc. As these diseases can be life-threatening, an abortion often helps to avoid serious medical complications from childbirth. But abortion should be carried out after proper medical advice as it can lead to potential miscarriages in the future. In male chauvinistic societies, women are considered nothing more than child bearing machines. Therefore, a right to abortion gives her an individual identity, as per which she can decide the fate of her child. At times, abortion also helps in keeping a check on the size of the family. It can serve as a potent tool to undo mistakes, thereby preventing mothers to be forced for raising a child at a young age. The convenience of abortion provides the parents with an option of having a wanted child. In its absence, any unwanted pregnancy would lead to the birth of many children, who weren't wanted. This could immensely hamper the social strata of the society, having negative implications especially on child's psyche. Moreover, in cases where women are raped, getting pregnant with such a child is yet another brutality they would be forced to bear. Thus, the option of abortion is the best for them.

Source: http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/civilize.shtml#benefits The high rates of death and serious injury associated with unsafe and illegal abortion prove that governments, public health officials, and right-wing religious groups are blind and indifferent to

the realities of women's lives. These people continue to believe that laws against abortion will stop abortion, in spite of obvious contrary evidence. The only thing that laws against abortion do is make abortion dangerous, turn most women into criminals, produce millions of disadvantaged children, and create wide disrespect for the law. When it's plain to see that tens of millions of women willingly risk their lives to end an unwanted pregnancy, the hypocrisy of those in power is nothing less than criminal. Much of the blame for this probably rests on the shoulders of more developed nations, who have failed to share enough of their wealth, technology, and experience with the rest of the world. However, through the United Nations, the world has recently recognized the right of women everywhere to education and reproductive healthcare, the right to participate in the political process, and other important rights. In addition, there is an increasing amount of open discussion and concern about unsafe abortion within the international community. Efforts are being made in many countries to make abortion safer and more accessible even where it is illegal. These are very positive developments. But unfortunately, you won't find any United Nations document that asserts legal abortion as the right of all women everywhere. Safe abortion, yes. But not legal. It seems the world is not quite ready for that yet, even though I don't believe there can ever be such a thing as safe, illegal abortion. We probably won't be able to change laws against abortion without some kind of universal consensus, like we have on slavery, but I believe we're getting closer and closer to that universal consensus. The day may soon come when women all around the world will have the legal right to decide for themselves when and whether to have children, and the means to exercise that right, safely. And children will have the fundamental right to be wanted, to grow up safe, happy, and healthy. On that day, the world will become truly civilized.