The question of induced abortion has remained divisive since it gained global attention in the 1970s, posing many complex moral and ethical implications that both support and oppose the concept. Morally, abortion is largely permissible when considering the interests of the pregnant woman, but could conversely be considered immoral if the fetus is granted personhood and the rights and interests that accompany it. For the Australian legislature, the prohibition of abortion poses numerous foreseeable negative implications that would make such legislation unethical. The physical side effects of abortion combined with the arguable personhood of the fetus pose ethical concerns for doctors performing the procedure. Australia’s abortion legislation, …show more content…
Ultimately, arguments from a diverse array of sources - philosophy, biology, religion, law, economics, human rights and more - inform both sides of the abortion debate, and on the balance of these arguments as a whole, a liberalised abortion policy is the best option in modern society. The moral permissibility of abortion hinges on the comparison between the mother’s rights and interests and the rights and interests of the fetus. In public discourse, one’s moral position on abortion is often defined by which side of this dichotomy one gives precedence to over the other. The pregnant woman’s interests support the argument for abortion; for instance, her moral entitlement to bodily integrity holds that she may counteract unwanted intrusion with her person. An unwanted pregnancy, with its physically and mentally taxing symptoms, clearly constitutes an ‘intrusion’; thus making it relevant to bodily integrity. Similarly in philosophy, libertarian thought espouses a ‘right to evict’ wherein a woman’s body is her property and the fetus in an unwanted pregnancy constitutes a trespasser. Although a property owner is obligated to reasonably minimise harm to the intruder when removing them, as it stands there is no abortion