Abortion is a highly controversial topic since it goes against the thought that all life is precious and should be given the basic right to live. When this right is disturbed, it is considered murder, which is a heinous offense to humanity. When a woman becomes pregnant, the fetus inside of her is, by fact, a living organism. It is not a biological part of the woman, which should mean that the fetus has its own right to live and its destiny cannot be controlled by the mother. In contrast however, since the fetus is not a biological part of the woman, it is not the responsibility of the woman to nurture the fetus if she does not wish. In this case, the fetus is more like an unwanted parasite, that could be excised by the host if need be. Abortion should be made legal in all circumstances regardless of the fact that it is murder, since the fetus' rights cannot overpower those of the mother's in the legal sense. Other situations like contraceptives and informed consent in the healthcare system can help provide context in support of abortion. By banning abortion on the basis of the right to life there would be issues such as an increased vulnerability to socioeconomic problems for women, an argument over pregnancy-inducing procedures like in vitro fertilization (IVF) and its outcome of the embryos, and an indirect destruction of other social infrastructures like child abuse laws.

The abortion argument has been traditionally broken down into two claims, the pro-life and the pro-choice arguments. The pro-choice argument says that the woman should be entitled to bodily autonomy, the ability to control what happens to her body. The pro-choice argument is typically supported by the proponents of women's rights and social equality, which are more liberal ways of thinking. On the other hand, the pro-life argument says that the fetus should be entitled to its own bodily autonomy, which in this instance would mean the right to live regardless of the intention of its mother. The pro-life argument is typically supported by those who believe that all life is precious, especially by those influenced by their religious beliefs, like Christianity or Islam, etc. A video by Catholic Answers on Youtube called, "When Does a Human Life Begin?," says that all human life should be respected with dignity since from the moment of where sperm and egg cell meet it is considered a human being, even though it is at a much earlier life stage than those that are born. Therefore, the pro-life argument says that abortion takes away the possibility of the future for a human being which is ethically wrong. An article called, "Abortion: A Threat to the Actualization of the Mother", by Anthony Crescio, a senior studying theology at the Marquette University says that the increase of mental health issues after abortion in women are accompanied with feelings of guilt and depression, which he attributes these feelings to the guilt of committing a sin against God, which is expressed when he says, "By offending her neighbor, the child, the mother has offended God through sin, and because of this she has caused a divide between herself and God who sustains her in life. Like all who commit an egregious sin, she experiences a death of the soul of sorts. This is exemplified in the symptom mentioned above, that the woman often feels as though she is a bad person, or that she is worthless." (Crescio). Although, it is true that the fetus is murdered during an abortion and that it is a morally wrong act, the true arguments for abortion should be to determine who has the overarching right, the woman's right to her body or the fetus' right to life. 

In order to determine whose right should be prioritized in the case of abortion, it is important to evaluate how the mother and the fetus are determined in relation to each other. The mother is the host of the fetus, because she provides nutrients and life to the fetus. Without the mother, the fetus would be unable to naturally survive. On the other hand, without the fetus the mother would be okay. The right to people deciding what can and cannot be done to them is a basic human right. Women have this right as well as fetuses since they are human. The problem with abortion lies in that while the woman can exercise this right, the fetus cannot although they should be allowed to. The fact that the fetus cannot individually use this right should show that the woman has the priority in this matter. According to Christine Overall, a Professor of Philosophy, she says in her article published in the Journal of Social Philosophy, "Rethinking Abortion, Ectogenesis, and Fetal Death", that " ... first, the fetus does not occupy the body of the woman by virtue of a right; the fetus does not have a right to the use of the woman's uterus, and therefore, ending its occupation is not always wrong." She uses inductive reasoning to understand that the fetus is dependent upon the woman but the woman is not dependent on it, therefore the woman has the ability to control its destiny especially if the pregnancy is unwanted. 

It also may be helpful in determining the role of the fetus in accordance to its mother by relating it to a different scenario. In the healthcare setting, it is important for the healthcare practitioners to gain the patient's permission for any procedure possible. Without this consent, the healthcare system could easily be sued for the reason of malpractice. A patient is entitled to refuse treatment, many of which can be lifesaving operations. This can be complicated with a patient that is pregnant since the patient's wishes to refuse treatment could ultimately harm the fetus. According to Christophe Lemmens' article, "End of Life Decisions and Pregnant Women: Do Pregnant Women Have the Right to Refuse Life Preserving Medical Treatment? A Comparative Study", written in the European Journal of Health Law, its main claim is that there are cases in which women could refuse treatment even if it meant that she and her child would die. This is in large part due to the nature of how healthcare works. The child cannot ever provide consent, while the mother can. Lemmens justifies this by saying, "This is the right course to be taken. The justification for this position is to be found in the doctrine of informed consent. To perform medical treatment on a patient without informed consent gives rise to both criminal and tort actions. For then the bodily integrity of the patient will have been wrongfully breached" (Lemmens). In the previous example, the woman was conscious to give her consent, however consciousness may not always be a situation. Abortion, in a case where the mother openly accepts the procedure, is relatively easy. However, in the case where the mother cannot provide consent to the procedure is much more difficult to determine the more ethical approach to the circumstance. Such cases can be a result of lack of mental capacity to make the decision, such as being mentally diseased like Alzheimer's or even being brain dead and on life-support. These cases are exponentially increased in conflict if the patient is pregnant. The decisions split ethically by forcing the health care practitioners to determine the best course of action, to preserve the rights of the woman or to preserve the life of the fetus. In situations where the patient is not mentally sound to make decisions, someone closely related to the patient like the spouse or parent makes the decision for them, since they may have the best interest of the patient in mind. However, in the situation of the mentally ill pregnant woman, the decision making for the person responsible for the patient also becomes confused. In many cases where the woman's chances of regaining mental consciousness is abysmal, the person responsible for the patient could choose to continue life support in order to preserve the life of the fetus. It is clear to most people that a loved one that has died would want to see their children live, even the unborn; however, "Using a woman's body for the sole purpose to act as a 'foetal container' is hardly the same as treating that body with respect" (Lemmens). Although, these cases may not seem common, they are still important since they offer at least a hypothetical situation in whose rights are prioritized.

Another example that could help distinguish the importance of the right of bodily autonomy of the woman over that of the fetus' right to live is through the use of contraceptives. Contraceptives, such as condoms and birth control pills are used to prevent pregnancies. Although contraceptives prevent pregnancies, and abortions are used to end pregnancies, they both provide a venue of bodily autonomy for the woman. For example, in the years before the advent of contraceptives, sexual intercourse would typically mean inducing pregnancy. The only way for a woman to control their body in the regards of having a child would be through abstinence. Abstinence, unfortunately, requires the cooperation of both the man and woman, since the man could still force sexual intercourse and still impregnate the woman. Contraceptives, especially the birth control pill, opened up the ability for the woman to be impactful with her choices that pertained to her own body. Even if a man had sex with the woman, the birth control pill would prevent pregnancy from happening. The importance of contraceptives can be evaluated in cases of regions of poverty. According to an article published in the International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics called, "Human Rights Advances in Women's Reproductive Health in Africa" says, "In a region where many countries have weak healthcare systems and women have poor access to obstetric services, states must meet contraceptive needs so as to reduce unwanted pregnancies and preventable maternal mortality and morbidity". The usefulness of contraceptives in helping women uncover self-determination can also be found in abortion, since it helps remedy the flaws of contraceptives, where it cannot stop an unprepared pregnancy like as a result of rape.

It may be helpful to determine the prioritization of fetal rights over women's rights by studying how laws that protect life during a pregnancy affect other countries. One of these countries was Ireland. Ireland allowed abortion, but only in severe cases such as a product of rape or a risk of women's health. This case study cannot be applied to the full legalization of abortion, since this only views abortion as a last resort. Nevertheless, it will provide a good example of how women's rights should be more emphasized in the case of abortion. The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act in Ireland allows some patients to be certified for abortion if they meet certain criteria, such as medical emergencies and the threat to life by physical or psychological means. The guidance document that outlines the criteria for certification of abortion, which is supposed to help doctors make decisions regarding abortion, is found to be counterintuitive, at least in the case when trying to prioritize the women's health. According to the article published in the International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, called "Women's right to health and Ireland's abortion laws" by Maeve Taylor says that, by having a law that prioritizes the right of life such as the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act it can force doctors to inadvertently make decisions that will prioritize the safety of the fetus' life rather than making decisions that prioritize the safety of the woman's life.  An example of this according to the article is "PP, who was at 15 weeks of pregnancy, experienced brain stem death on December 3. A fetal heartbeat was present, and doctors, fearful of doing anything that would "get them into trouble from a legal point of view", implemented a medical process to facilitate the continuation of "somatic care"... PP's father sought an order from the High Court for the withdrawal of the somatic support measures. The High Court ruled that the state's interest in preserving fetal life does not require that it be prolonged at all costs, and that life support for the fetus could be removed" (Taylor). This example shows that the prioritization of fetal life over bodily autonomy was conflicting with the essence of what healthcare is, to treat patients with dignity and respect which was not done in this case since the body was made into a container to facilitate growth for the fetus.

By giving priority to the fetus' right to life over the mother's right to bodily autonomy, a number of problems can arise. One of the most argued is that this would directly ban the act of abortion. By banning abortion, one of the most important things that it will affect a woman can be their socioeconomic situation. According to a video by Guttmacher Institute called, "Abortion in the United States", statistics show that approximately 60% of women who have abortions are doing it because they would be unable to care for their children, time-wise and/or financially and that abortion seems to be more common for those in more impoverished conditions This statistic shows that a good number of abortion patients are low-income, which means that they would be more unlikely to be able to finance their child's life. This statistic can also be reflective of how income has a correlation to sexual education. Those living in poor conditions are less likely to receive sexual education and therefore are more likely to become pregnant, which is evident when Guttmacher says, "These trends reflect widespread inequities in other areas. Not enough access to contraception and to quality, affordable health care. And not enough educational opportunities and good jobs. These broad social and economic inequities must be addressed. But, at a minimum, contraception should be easy to get and use for all. And comprehensive sex education should be available to all adolescents". Along with damage to socioeconomic balance, the woman could be under attack by living a relatively normal life. According to an article published in the Lewis & Clark law Review called "Of Persons And Prenatal Humans: Why The Constitution Is Not Silent On Abortion" by Lawrence Nelson, "If the unborn were persons, pregnant women would be subject to criminal prosecution in an unprecedented and intrusive manner based on the conduct of their daily lives. Acts like drinking alcohol, eating fish, or working at a job that exposes them to fetotoxic substances could readily be found criminal although otherwise legal for all other persons, including the parents of born children". This can pose a serious threat to women and their personal freedoms since they could be made criminals for doing things that they could do before being pregnant, which would make them less of human beings but more like a catalyst for human reproduction.

Another problem that can arise from the ban of abortion, under the philosophy that the right to life, especially of the fetus, outweighs the right of bodily autonomy, is that anything concerning embryos could also fall under attack. One of the major things that could be affected is the IVF procedure (in vitro fertilization). In vitro fertilization is the procedure where the egg is fertilized outside of the body and the embryo is then transplanted into the mother's uterus. This procedure allows women who may be infertile otherwise have children. Furthermore, it is impactful in the homosexual community since same sex couples would be unable to have children of their own without a sperm donor, for a lesbian couple, or a surrogate, for gay males. Of course, the sperm donor or surrogate could directly have sexual intercourse to help conceive a child, but there could be ethical issues. The problem with the IVF procedure, if the right of life is extended to fetuses, according to Bertha Alvarez Manninen's article in the Journal of Social Philosophy, called "Beyond Abortion: The Implications of Human Life Amendments", is that "Although the numbers vary, there are currently thousands of frozen embryos left over from IVF treatments. Unless transferred into a uterus for possible implantation and birth, most of the embryos will be discarded and some will be used for research purposes; the vast majority of these embryos, therefore, will perish. However, if these embryos are considered persons per an HLPA, destroying them in any manner is tantamount to homicide". It would be very difficult and expensive for the IVF procedure to only create one embryo at a time. The procedure is not guaranteed to be 100% and by removing the main success factor in of the procedure, which is by increasing the number of embryos implanted, it can cause the procedure to be inefficient. Furthermore, this raises up another concern where if only a few embryos were allowed to be created, the few that can be worked with may not be genetically viable. In the IVF procedure, usually embryos that are the best are implanted and the weaker are put away. IVF itself is controversial, but it may be considered unethical to implant an embryo that is knowingly at a disadvantage.

In conclusion, fetal right to life should never outweigh that of an individual's bodily autonomy. By doing so, fetuses and embryos would gain a status almost equal to that of already living persons. This would cause a destruction of social structure since it directly conflicts with the healthcare system. Although abortion would be a blatant disregard of a moral code, that human life is precious, illegalizing abortion would be a more blatant disregard for individuality and freedom of choice, which is essential to human autonomy. Rebecca Traister says it best in an article on New Republic called "Let's Just Say It: Women Matter More Than Fetuses Do", "Public discussion of abortion has come to inexorably privilege fetal life over female life. The imaginary futures -- the "personhoods" -- of the unborn have taken moral precedence over the adult women in whose bodies they grow". By giving fetuses too strong of a priority, it can cause women's status as individuals to diminish and they may be seen more as things that are what facilitate human reproduction. In order to resolve this problem, abortion should be made legal while research could be made to have artificial pregnancies outside of the human uterus to grant the right to life to fetuses while maintaining the right of bodily autonomy for women. Governments should direct more funds towards researching the miracle of life that is pregnancy, in order to resolve conflict of interest and save all human lives.

