Dan Ridge's Abortion Is Murder

When the framers in Philadelphia sat down to write the constitution, they never considered the issues of today’s age such as abortion. Abortion today is one of the most controversial issues in America. Abortion may be ruled to be constitutional but there is still plenty of opposition that says otherwise.

Addressing the opposing argument: “One perspective argues that abortion is a uniquely traumatic experience because it involves a human death experience, specifically, the intentional destruction of one’s unborn child and the witnessing of a violent death, as well as a violation of parental instinct and responsibility…” (Brenda Major

The lives of newborn children are protected by law; however, the live of embryos are not when it comes to abortion. If you asked the pro-abortionists why it is legal to kill a human being before birth, but it is illegal to kill the same human being after birth, they would likely point you to some of the differences that exist between humans in the womb and humans out of the womb (abortionfacts.com). The pro-abortionists’ opinion in Roe v. Wade illustrated that the word “person,” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn because embryos and fetuses are not independent beings until they are “viable.” The Supreme Court defines viable to mean the start of the third trimester, which between the 24th and 28th week of a pregnancy (Foer, 1997). However, the scientists demonstrated that an embryo is a "whole, separate, unique, living, human being" from the moment of conception by doing DNA fingerprinting and polymerase chain reaction. These techniques indicate an embryo has a complete set of DNA, also have proven that the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization (New Scientist, 2006). In another word, it means an embryo is the stage where personhood

Abortion is a topic that is hugely debated throughout the country. The argument often centers on “the women’s right to her own body, the embryo’s right to

My goal in this essay is to show that Michael Tooley’s response to the Potentiality Argument fails. I begin with a formulation of the Potentiality Argument. Next, I present Tooley’s response to this argument. Finally, I argue that this response fails.

Even today, there are many moral and philosophical issues that divide the United States because they create very polarized opinions and beliefs. One such philosophical issue is the moral permissibility of infanticide. Mary Anne Warren, a philosopher, presents her liberal yet controversial views on the issue of infanticide in the postscript of her article, On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion. However, the anti-infanticide arguments pose problems for Warren’s position because they justify the immorality of infanticide through the physical similarity in resemblance of neonates to human beings. These arguments also claim that the destruction of a viable infant is needless because even if the infant’s biological parents reject the infant, there are many other parents who are willing to adopt and nurture that infant.

“Life begins at conception. Therefore, an un-born baby has a right to life. This court ruling is a slap in the face of humanity” (Gordon, Tacoma,

After watching the movie Peter Singer: A Dangerous Mind, I’m not exactly sure where to begin. Now, the reason that I said I wasn’t sure where to begin is because this film covers quite a few different arguments. There is so much to process that I had to go over some parts again to make sure that I was absorbing everything that was being said. That being said, it’s seems the best place to start would have to be with Peter Singer’s very first words of the film. “Killing a disabled infant is sometimes not wrong. Given that the infant, like any infant, is not a person, as I see it, I think that it’s ethically defensible to say we do not have to continue its life. It doesn’t have a right to life”. It’s a jarring opening statement to say the least,

In the case of rape, an abortion would be morally tolerable, such that the fetus being formed does not one have the amount of rights as a fetus that was created from intended conception. (Thomson 5). When we are faced in the case such that a baby is to be born from rape, the baby is looked down upon in shame, as well as the mother.In the Christian religion, a baby conceived from rape, is a sin and is not God’s will. (Thistlethwaite 1). However, being said so, we are presented with a statement that does not please, the ears, therefore, we are forced to question whether or not a baby would like to be told they are the product of a rape. Being so, we can dismiss this case on the grounds that abortion is permissible in the case of rape, and a fetus being conceived from rape. Thomson additionally arises the objection that when presented with the fact that everyone has a right to life, including an unborn child, we cannot kill anyone or anything. (Thomson 19). This is brought up from a strict point of view on the value and preservation of life.But, why should an unborn life have priority over a mother’s life? In the case as such, the mother should just throw away her own life. Additionally, the mother should just give up on her own life and give away her body if she cannot even have the choice to determine what takes place within and to her body as well. In another case, Thomson describes waking up next to a violinist that needed your own blood type in order to survive. You woke up just to find out that the two of you would be attached to one another for the next nine months, in order to discontinue this attachment, would immediately lead to the death of this violinist. Thomson provides the argument that in a situation where another person’s life may outweigh your own, then you are left to no avail. (Thomson 4). This defends the statement that since all violinists are people, then they cannot disband and

In the article 'A Defense of Abortion' Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that abortion is morally permissible even if the fetus is considered a person. Morally philosophy paper by Judith Jarvis Thomson first published in year 1971, granting for the sake of argument that the fetus has a right to life, she uses thought experiments to argue that the fetus's right to life doesn't trump the pregnant woman's right to control her own body and its life-support functions, and that induced abortion is therefore not morally impermissible. In particular her primary reason for presenting an argument of this nature is that the abortion argument at the time had effectively come to a standstill. The typical anti-abortion argument was based on the idea that a fetus is a person and since killing a person is wrong, therefore abortion is wrong.

Probably the most famous argument against the pro-life position is Judith Jarvis Thomson’s Violinist Analogy, in which you are attached, against your will, to a famous unconscious violinist to prevent his dying from a kidney ailment. Contained in the original essay this argument appeared, A Defense of Abortion, there are other arguments contained therein to argue against the pro-life position. I would like to take a look at the entirety of her essay and show why it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

I believe that the American public has been deceived into thinking that unborn babies are not considered human beings. Referring to unborn babies as "fetus," or "embryos," may be scientifically or politically correct, but it does not change the fact that these little ones are living beings and not blobs of tissue as so often described. A living human begins to exist at the moment of conception, even

Even the U.S. Government considers unborn babies as living people (“Should Abortions Be Legal”). Babies develop a heartbeat at six weeks of age, but it’s estimated that 92% of all abortions take place after that time (“19 Statistics About Abortion”). Furthermore, studies have shown that the babies feel pain during an abortion (Should Abortions Be Legal). So not only are babies biologically considered living people, but also 92% of the time they have a heartbeat, and they feel the pain of the abortion. Besides the fact that the babies are living, abortions are also wrongful because they can be physically harmful to the

Is it fair to have to take a course and pass a test to become a parent?

This section started with the questions of why personhood is relevant to the abortion debate, what is a person and how can one identify personhood? Personhood is relevant because without an idea what is a person we cannot have a judgment whether foetuses are persons. Having a moral judgment about abortion seems heavily relies on the personhood of foetuses. We proposed that the arguments on the personhood of the foetus needs to be classified differently from the manner in which this task is carried out in the current literature. This was argued on the basis that the arguments from the intrinsic (essential) property of personhood are not making an argument from potentiality. For the proponents of the intrinsic (essential) property arguments,