Abortion thesis statement is simply too controversial, and the sides are too judgmental toward the opposite opinion. To state an excellent thesis, you must get acquainted with the entire features and factors influencing the mum to terminate her pregnancy. Learn all of the varieties and reasons for pressured pregnancy termination and be open-minded to the drawback and the doer of the motion, as for one of these intricate query the correct facet may with no trouble transform incorrect one.
1. The opposite of pro-life is not pro-death.
The term “pro-life” introduces into the debate a false antinomy that places the debate in a false moral and ethical dilemma: nor are pro-abortion people pro-death – even if they are labeled as “murderous” – nor are the people who are against abortion pro-life. The term life is neither ahistorical nor neutral.
2. The absolute defense of life would condemn us to death through starvation.
The defenders of life, in line with thesis statement about abortion, generally focus their defense on the fact that fertilization and gestation already presuppose a life, an “other” that cannot be deprived of life or its inalienable rights. But beyond discussing whether life begins 2 or 4 weeks after fertilization, the question we have to ask ourselves is what kind of life we are talking about when we refer to an embryo or a fertilized egg. Is it about life as a biological fact, as the lowest common denominator of the human subject?
3. The refusal to decriminalize abortion is inextricably linked to the sovereign decision.
The progressive confusion between Zoe and Bios is anything but innocent; it is at the base of the modern concept of sovereignty.
Should abortion be legal thesis statement?
The sovereign is the one who can decide who has the right to die and live. Therefore, what is at stake in the abstract and biological defense of life are not the rights of embryos or fetuses, but the preservation of sovereign decision. The sovereign, whose authority comes from God and then is transferred to the Modern State, is the only one with the capacity to “make live” and “let die,” a reason that also explains, by the way, the refusal to legalize euthanasia.
4. The crusade for life makes women bodies docile to death.
This sovereign logic, far from being neutral, is inscribed in a male topography of power that transforms women into subjects of a sovereign patriarchal power, extirpating their autonomy and their ability to decide on their bodies.
5. The naked life is the ideal fuel of capitalist exploitation.
The ontologization of life presupposes the negation of justice and dignity. Now, a life devoid of dignity condemns the subject to a subhuman existence, involves survival rather than living, being reduced to an animal existence (eat, sleep, work). It is no coincidence that those who passionately defend life defend with equal vigor the free market, private property, the death penalty or wars in the Middle East, because the only right they are interested in defending is the right to be born. The reduction of the human being to a beast of burden, to an unworthy being, by virtue of abstract and disembodied labor, is a historical necessity, from which it does not follow that the unworthy life has to be extinguished, but rather that there is to fight for a life that allows us the free development of all our creative and desiring powers. This is the absurd: you have the right to be born above anything, but from then on the value of your life is assigned by the invisible hand of the market, as if it were a can of sardines or a television.
6. Reproductive Rights and Human Rights are uncomfortable travel companions.
The frequent comparisons made between the holocaust and human rights violations during the Pinochet dictatorship and thesis statement for abortion cannot fail to be aberrant. Some propagandists even speak of a second genocide if the abortion law was approved in its three causes in Chile. However, it must be recognized that, both abortion and the defense of human rights, especially in their western version, share the same discursive positivity; they are part of the same system of production of meaning. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) is based on the same defense of life as biological data and it is only in 1976 that other social rights come into force: right to work, decent housing, health, etc.
7. The prohibition of abortion is a prohibition of female desire.
What the defense of life forbids is not only the possibility of interrupting pregnancy, but the possibility of female desire itself outside of reproduction. Reproduction -this should be kept in mind by all Marxists- is as important as production, that is why feminine desire has been persecuted, controlled, disciplined … Regardless of where human life begins, what we do know is that the formation of subjectivity is a slow process and that desire in general and maternal desire in particular is not something that can be legislated. It is not understood, with this in mind, the obstinacy to continue forcing to give birth to raped women, impregnated against their desire, unless the prohibition of abortion aims to castrate female desire.
8. The best anti-abortion policy.
Abortion thesis statement is a catastrophe; no one aborts for sport or for pleasure, in that there is agreement. Therefore, in addition to sex education programs and the prevention of adolescent pregnancy, I believe that the Revolution – that is to say, the structural destruction of capitalism, colonialism and patriarchy – would be the best weapons against abortion. If all of us could opt for a dignified existence outside of domination and exploitation, maybe we were all pro-family and we would only have to worry that the death drive would not be unleashed (too much), we could allow Eros to link everything that today appears threatened by the destruction, we could even go back to the etymological meaning of religion, to go beyond the absurd reductionism of biologic ideology and its mortal shadow.