Many people have opposing views whether abortion is a moral right that should be permissible. Even though that a life is being “taken away” and not giving it a chance to experience said life, the right to life argument is hypocritical and contradicts its own moral beliefs. In this essay, I will first explain what the right to life argument is against abortion, why Judith Jarvis Thomson thinks it fails and then will give my explanation why Thomson’s argument succeeds that abortion is morally permissible even if the fetus has a right to life. I will also consider objections and show why they fail. The right to life argument believes that abortion is morally wrong because of the simple fact that a life is literally being taken away by force—that it is equivalent to murder.
Thomson hints to the idea that every human being has a right to life; therefore, the woman would have no moral obligation to continue with the pregnancy (Warren 309). Warren places much emphasis on Thomson’s argument for the probability of it being a strong stance for the permissibility of abortion or a strong argument that abortion is murder, which is unique in and of itself because it has the possibility of arguing for or against abortion. Thomson construes two steps in which the moral status of abortion should be determined by. The first step is determining the true moral status of a fetus and the second is creating a distinguishable difference between the rights of the fetus vs. the rights of the woman (Warren 309). Warren structures her argument like that of Thomson’s by creating two steps which will support her stance that abortion is morally
The status of the fetus is one of the major keys determining whether the abortion is appropriate or not appropriate, but according to Hursthouse the status of the fetus does not apply into the virtue theory. Hursthouse states, “... the status of the fetus - that issue over which so much ink has been split - is according to virtue theory, simply not relevant to the rightness or wrongness of abortion” (Hursthouse 164). Don Marquis argues that abortion is seriously wrong. Marquis does admit that his argument can include some exemptions which include such cases as
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.
You are supposed to feel like you ought to be able to unplug which seems to force you to think the woman should have the right to abort. Firstly, this only applies to the less than one percent of cases where the woman is raped and thus forced to be pregnant. Secondly it equates unplugging to abortion because both are decisions that allow more freedom for the subject. The answer does not lie in the morality of unplugging because it is a false analogy. The difference is that unplugging is abstaining from care, and abortion is deliberately killing.
Abortion is killing a fetus, a fetus is a person, all person has a right to life, killing someone with a right to life is always wrong. In Thompsons article, she portrays that this statement isn’t always true by making arguments in certain situations that abortion is okay. However, many might disagree with her arguments about abortion but, to which I see to be perfectly thought-out and, explained. A person is not morally bounded to do something for someone else such as to save their life. This is what Thompson suggest when she gives the argument about Henry Fonda’s hand.
“The terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" generally boil down to whether an individual thinks abortion should be banned or if it 's acceptable” (Head). There of course is more depth to the debate than that. Someone who is "pro-life" believes that the government has a commitment to preserve all human life, even if the pregnancy is unwanted, or what kind of life the child may have (Head). The pro-life movement argues that even a non-viable, undeveloped human life must be protected by the government. Abortion must not be legal according to this argument, and it shouldn’t be practiced on
Written Assignment #6 In Judith Jarvis Thompson’s article, A Defense of Abortion, where Thompson discusses argues that abortion is not always permissible, but permissible in certain circumstances; such as, the abortion is done attempt to save the mother’s life and in cases of rape. However, I do not believe provides a solid enough argument in stating that abortion is immoral in nearly all circumstances. In this argument, Thompson takes on the perceptive that the fetus is a living person. Thompson believes abortion in only acceptable in very rare circumstances; such as rape. Thompson states, “I am arguing for the permissibility of abortion in some cases, I am not arguing for the right to secure the death of the unborn child” (335).
Both of these sides argue whether or whether not the fetus is a person on not when it comes to aborting a child. • Pro-choice argues: o The fetus is not a human until after the first trimester o Cases like rape or incest should be allowed for abortion o Abortion can take a toll on a person life and should be available because some parents are not financially stable or mentally prepared for a child to come in their life. • Pro-life argues: o The fetus is a human as soon as it’s conceived o Adoption could be an alternate for abortion so no life is taken and the child goes to a family that will love and take care of it. o Tax dollars shouldn’t be used to pay for abortions if all citizens don’t support or have the same views on
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.
Perhaps his essay and argument was more difficult to follow. It is common sense that it is wrong to kill. His reading is not convincing to why it is that the unborn child is being robbed of its future through abortion. While this is true for the most part it is just too broad. His strongest point is simply that killing is not right and it does rob the victim of their future.