Abortion Is Genocide vs Abortion Is Not Genocide, Essay Example

Abortion, in contemporary meanings, refers to the deliberate pregnancy termination. Today, possibly no contemporary subject encourages more passionate debate than the issue of abortion. Many people have experienced and witnessed the resentment of this type of controversial debate. In this world there are two types of people the Pro-choice and Pro-life. Pro-choice people believe that it the right of women to decide about a safe, legal abortion. While the Pro-life people think that abortion something like a murder. Why it has been believed that abortion debate as so emotional? Some contend about the fetus right (unborn baby) while other people claim if abortion must be legal. The debate on abortion generally wanders away from such basic issues. The purpose of this essay is to compare and contrast the two different articles on the issue of abortion.

The first article “Abortion Is Genocide by Definition” by Meredith Eugene Hunt provided that “abortion doesn’t do the reality justice, and this is why ‘genocide’ is the most accurate term we have now.” While in the second article “A Flawed Analogy: Pro-Choice Politicians & the Third Reich” by Cathleen Kaveny contended that abortion is not genocide because “the relationship between women and their unborn children is not the same as the relationship between Nazis and Jews.”

Meredith Hunt believes it genocide, and with his structured and simple organization he validates that disagreement with the explanations of genocide exist on number of legal agreements and documents around the globe. Meredith Hunt presents no less than five explanations in his article, developing his reliability by merely labeling recognized businesses for instance the United Nation (UN), Amnesty International, the government of France – struggling to authenticate his claim that “genocide is the best and accurate word we have now” for the “crime that has no name” – abortion. He further believes that the “purposeful intent” of “obliterating members of a religious, racial, ethics or national group” involves the abortion – and provides images that have been taken at the time of pregnancy as evidence that even a fetus is human being – therefore by razing or removing it means genocide is committed.

On the other side, Kaveny in his article innocently reject this claim that removing fetus is genocide, with her comparable methodical and straightforward structure she highlights that genocide, as commended by the Nazis in opposition to the Jews, “is not the same as the relationship between a woman and her unborn child.” If comparison and contrast can be made on this base, someone cannot “avoid the conclusion that the Nazi regime merits the same fate as the US government and Constitution.” With her more sorrow technique (hence the preceding application to patriotism), the writings of Kaveny appears to be less biased and severe (however both pieces are particularly partial). Whereas Meredith Hunt lists explanations to validate and authenticate his main point, Kaveny utilizes straightforward logic to present and validate her illustrations. She states that “many women who face crisis pregnancies are financially and socially vulnerable” and because all people started out in the class of “unborn,” there is no such question of inferiority with such type of “people” as with the victims of number of genocides – not meeting the criteria of abortion as genocide.

Both writers provide convincing explanations for their case, resemblance can be discovered in the design of their essays, but the similarity ends there. Meredith Eugene Hunt presents some points of high standard with his realistic and practical tone in highlighting the dissimilarities in the intention and relationships of genocide participants and those women which are pregnant. He incorporates the qualifiers in his claim but the piece of Kaveny is in general more balanced. The negative moral and ethical complexities of abortion are with confidence there, but they, same as the pro claims concerning to the abortion, are debatable. Whereas Meredith Eugene Hunt considers points of scientific data to a fetus being totally human, but number of professionals attached to medical field could disagree. Though Kaveny thinks carrying a baby needs immense “emotional and physical potential,” number of women could maintain that it is entirely natural process. But evaluating the decision a mother (women) decides to not carry a baby to full term (abortion) to the proceedings of Nazi soldiers’ droving Jewish people into the chambers of gas (genocide), is misleading to me. Even though the explanations of genocide may suit different cases what is happened in removing the fetus, Kaveny’s mostly sadness illustrations inspired me of her perspective. Conceivably because of the more harsh, even severe, type of Hunt’s position (abortion = genocide) put next to with the normally less insensitive Kaveny views, the sincerity of both essays let the opinion of Hunt come off as somewhat extreme whereas  assisted Kaveny to create her argument more clearly and therefore usually more persuasive.

References

Meredith Eugene Hunt, “Abortion Is Genocide by Definition,” Sidelines, September 27, 2007.

Cathleen Kaveny, “A Flawed Analogy: Pro-Choice Politicians & the Third Reich,” Commonweal, June 20, 2008. Copyright © 2008 Commonweal Publishing Co., Inc.