Abortion is defined as the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. The idea of ending the emergence of a new life is too horrible to comprehend. I will prove that abortion is morally wrong through the use of my normative ethical theory. My normative ethical theory is: an act is right if it honors God and what He has created and wrong if it dishonors God and what He has created. Clearly, according to my theory, a baby is something that God has created and killing it or terminating it before it reaches full term is wrong.
Is not abortion murdering a baby in the comfortable and safe womb of the mother? This issue has caused many discussions, because even though it is obvious that you are killing a baby, people do not consider it as murder. Abortion is painfully taking a baby´s right to live just because the embryos are not considered human beings. God created us in his image,which gives us a value, and we do not determine if a baby has the right to live based on how we think humans are. All humans have thought on the idea of abortion, and how painful that is to a baby.
That would allow her to think that other women can still an abortion but not her. Another way, could be that Nancy could consider her motive for an abortion to be immoral. Nancy could be aware although not perfect, her fetus has the potential to have a healthy and happy life. In that aspect, Nancy could fall in the group of moderates who believe that abortion are only allowed under certain circumstances and for Nancy a fetus with Down Syndrome could simply not fall under those circumstances. Or Nancy could believe that her views are not absolute and could allow women to make up their minds about what is moral or
Future Like Ours The two essays I will discuss are “Why abortion is Immoral”, by Don Marquis and “Killing Embryos for Stem Cell Research, by Jeff McMahan. I will illustrate the dispute of when we begin to have a future like ours between Marquis and McMahan. Marquis argues that we stay equal as a fetus to the being we are later. However, McMahn argues that we are numerically distinct from the time we are a fetus to the human being we become.
Callahan would suggest that Lisa continues the pregnancy, as she does not have a right to control this other body that is dependent on her, especially since it is fully developed. The act of terminating the late pregnancy would be, according to Callahan, comparable to murdering a powerless or immature person. Lisa would need to consider herself as not just a single unit and understand that a human is developed within her care. Though it might seem like a quick and “easy” solution to terminate if the fetus was just an embryo, the fact that Lisa is carrying a six-month-old fetus makes it more morally serious and hard. Moreover, Lisa has a moral obligation to take care of this life form.
Whether it be for the same reasoning, Noddings should agree with what the Supreme Court has ruled in the regards to when abortions should be allowed. It also shows how the Supreme Court seems to be making the morally best choice for our country. This reading brought into question, does it even matter what the line is that separates the acceptable stage from the unacceptable. Regardless of the situation the mother was in, people will judge based on their prior ideas of abortions.
Michael Tooley takes a liberal approach on abortion. He believes that killing a fetus is morally acceptable. He debates that abortion during any stage of pregnancy should be accepted with his reason being that a fetus does not have “a serious right to life”. In his work "Abortion and Infanticide", he discuss "what characteristics [a fetus] must have in order to be considered a person." He believes that a person’s identity is progressively attained, and the fetus is not a person until birth.
All of the upcoming expenses begin to stress them out, and they start looking for the easiest way out. These new parents weigh the options, and they come to believe that abortion is the easiest option, but little do they know that adoption is safer, better, and cheaper than an abortion. How is an adoption safer? What if the child ends up with negligent parents? An abortion is taking away the life of an innocent, unborn child while an adoption is giving the child a better home.
For the last couple of years, americans have been deeply polarized over the issue of abortion. They debate has been cast in terms of “ pro-life” views and “pro-choice” views. The legality of abortion was confirmed in 1973 when the United States Supreme Court struck down a Texas
“The right to life is the first among human rights.” – Pope Francis Yet we, as people still consider abortion as a viable option for post-pregnancy. Do we, as humans, still have the right to be human when we deprive someone else, an unborn child, of his/her life? The 40th president of the US, Ronald Reagan had said to us a very significant point: “I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.”
Secondly, Pro-Life advocates make the argument that abortion should not be used because adoption is a perfectly good alternative. This is imply a false statement because abortion and adoption are two extremely different actions. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy and adoption is the giving away of a child for personal reasons. In one case the baby is definitely alive, adoption, and in the other case it is debatable whether the fetus is alive or not, abortion. Additionally, “very few women who give birth choose to give up their babies - less than 3% of white unmarried women and less than 2% of black unmarried women” (Lowen, Linda).
However, Roe delivered her baby before the decision was made. The majority ruled that the case required close observation regarding the laws about abortion. However, dissenting reasoning that the Judicial power being used took away state power given by the government and the constitution. Roe v. Wade was a landmark case because of the focus on such an important and long debate on the subject matter of abortion.
Not only because he is pro-life and many philosophers are pro-choice but because he focuses on the potential future of value. He is comparing a human who actually has a future of value, to a fetus, which has not yet begun life. I think that Marquis argument is a very strong pro-life argument, however to say that abortion is wrong solely because the fetus has not fulfilled his potential future
Don Marquis offers the following argument against the moral permissibility of abortion: 1. It is wrong to deprive any determinate individual of having a “future like ours” (FLO), that is, of the future valuable experiences that its future may contain. 2. To have an abortion is to deprive a determine individual (a fetus) of a FLO. ---------------- 3.