Likewise, abortion appears to be morally wrong because of the potential agency account. The potential agency account states that even at the earliest stages of the fetus’s development; a zygote has the potential of having moral rights as an actual person who is fully developed. Ultimately, the right to life argument concludes that even if the mother has a right to life and what to do with her body the right to life will always exceed the mother’s decision if she decides to abort the fetus (Leary 2018). This reason ties up to the prohibitive view which strongly believes that there is no such thing as a “cut off” stage for a developing fetus and that it is declared a person at the moment of conception. Abortion in this sense can be concluded that it is not morally permissible.
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.
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).
“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
Abortion is considered as a sin by many, but is also measured as the answer to certain issues such as overpopulation. According to the recent studies, Canada has fluctuated extremely from being the most pro-life country around the globe to one of the most pro-choice. As a country known for its multiculturalism, many immigrates and emigrates, bringing one of their prized possession – religion. Having said, this issue of abortion in Canada, through the lens of religion, with the views of conflict and functionalism theorist, shapes their stance in regards to the culture and ethics of their affiliated faith. The significant way of looking at the issue of abortion can be seen through human rights, religion and when life begins meaning, when one
That is to say, at what point does a person develop a consciousness that defines them as human? Another aspect to the dilemma is whether or not carrying out a pregnancy will cause undue harm to the individual or caretaker. According to the Bible, God has called upon everyone before birth (Isaiah 49:1), and God has a purpose for everybody (Jeremiah 29:11). With this consideration, the argument for abortion becomes apparently unethical, and undeniably blasphemous. The two prevailing courses of action to counter this dilemma involve intervention before conception.
It doesn’t justify the reasoning to not have an abortion on the fact that the people could have been of somewhat importance. Why bother keeping the child just for that supposedly reason that a fetus could become something of importance. Should it mean that the women conceiving the child should still have the baby even though they would die having them even if they do not know if the baby would not even have such an importance ? What if your mother had aborted you ? Well, if I'd never come into existence in the first place, I probably wouldn't have any strong feelings on the matter.
Not only does it give physician, who is still human, too much power and room for human error, it is religiously and morally incorrect, violates the Hippocratic oath, and above devalues the precious gift of life. As stated earlier, treatment is possible and should be looked into instead of giving up. Donating your final moments to research and to help aid in discovering different treatment options, could give a child a chance to live that is diagnosed with the same illness. There will always be pros and cons to this subject but my opinion stands. A person has to right to refuse or accept treatment, but should not be able to take their own lives by assistance of a
Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice: Annihilating the Abortion Argument says, “In light of the fact that both science and Scripture corroborate the view that abortion is the painful killing of an innocent human being, it is incumbent upon Christians to do everything in their power to halt the spread of this enormous evil.” You wouldn’t like to get killed with no chance to say no or no chance to say no or to put up a fight. Killing an innocent person is wrong and you should be put in jail for doing that because your baby should have the chance to live. Even if you don’t want the baby you could keep it for the nine months and then give it to a family that can’t have kids and could give someone a good
Unborn babies are still human beings and have the right to life just as anyone else would. It is unfair to make decisions for a child when they didn’t choose to be brought into the world, but since they were, they should be able to live the life rightfully given to them. According to Judie Brown, “Abortion kills a human being; abortion stops a beating heart; abortion at any stage of an individual’s biological development is murder!” (Brown, “Face the Facts: Abortion Is Murder”) This quote blatantly states the ultimate truth about abortion and also says that no matter what stage the pregnancy is at, an abortion that is performed is murder. One of the largests abortion clinics has done millions of abortions, along with other health programs, but Joshua Denton found that, “Planned Parenthood has killed over 7.6 million babies since it legally began performing abortions in 1973 following the Roe v. Wade decision.” (Denton, “Planned Parenthood Killed 321,384 Babies Last Year Bringing Total Killed to Over 7.6 Million”) Planned Parenthood knowingly kills hundreds of thousands of babies every year and even tries to convince communities that are pro life convert to pro choice. They even try to pass different laws in different countries, such as Guyana, to allow middle class citizens access to health care providers who can perform abortions, which is increasing the death toll of unborn babies who are murdered around the
The subject of abortion is always and will most likely continue to be a subject of controversy and disagreement. Basically we have two sides, one that is pro-life and the other being pro-choice. Judith Jarvis Thompson clearly takes the pro-choice stance and gives unique arguments on the subject of abortion. On the other hand Don Marquis supports the pro-life position on the topic of abortion. While neither will ever agree, both make points that will make you truly think about how you feel as an individual.
In a pro-choice case, the mother’s intention is to not solely get pregnant and abort a growing fetus. It is not morally acceptable with aborting a twenty eight week old fetus in her eyes by means of basically dissecting it to pull it out of the womb. However, the mother of the child does not wish for this, but the mother may simply have an ethical view that her rights are of greater importance than that of a fetus. Therefore, this case of foreseeing someone’s death by a means of indirect killing is morally permissible while a case in which a means of direct killing is not permissible. I propose the bases of my claims to be that there is no exact specific distinction whether ones intentions are morally permissible solely by the individual’s actions on the case in thus, will alter with the given morality that a fetus does or does not have a right to human