Thomson could argue against my theory of the wrongness of abortion in all cases. She could argue with the following. Abortion is only wrong if the fetus is deemed a person, and there is no way to determine if the fetus is or is not a person than it comes down to opinion. That being said, the mother does not have the right to end her child’s (fetuses) life. Even though a person has the potential to change the world it doesn’t mean someone else won’t.
Mary Anne Warren is a well-known American philosopher who has influenced the argument of the controversial issue, abortion. Today, I will be supporting Warren’s belief and theory on abortion solely being the woman’s choice and will do so by refuting other theories and philosophers including; John T Noonan, Judith Thompson, and Don Marquis. John T. Noonan revolves his argument of abortion around the idea of conception. According to Noonan, abortion is morally wrong because a being comes into existence at the point of conception. Also, being conceived by human parents automatically classifies the fetus as a human as well.
Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by eliminating a fetus or embryo from the womb before it can survive on its own. There is much debate over the moral, ethical, and legal issues of abortion. There are two sides on the issue of abortion that will be discussed. The first one is pro-life. These individuals are anti-abortion, which means they agree that an embryo or fetus is a human with a right to life.
I believe a mother has their right to their own body. Because the mother’s, already existing, life is more important they should be able to terminate any pregnancy. For example, If a child is not apart of their plan or their life is at risk abortion should be an available option. One of the biggest reasons for legalizing abortion, I found intriguing about the Roe versus Wade law, is the case that If a child is unwanted they are more likely to develop physiological issues. Even if the parents decide to have the child and give it up, they could suffer in an unjust foster system and also become a delinquent.
Debates about abortion have engendered both, great interest and great hostility in the past few years. An issue of contention even today, the ethics surrounding abortion shall be discussed in this paper. As a person that believes abortion is morally permissible, I shall begin my argument by first addressing the ‘conservative’ position against abortion. I shall then examine the arguments laid out by Peter Singer in “Practical Ethics” regarding the permissibility of abortion and infanticide. It should be noted here that while I agree that abortion is permissible, I am opposed to the claim that infanticide is permissible under regular circumstances.
A reproductive justice framework works to relieve these feelings. Planned Parenthood offers support and services to help with an unwanted pregnancy as well as medically accurate information about the results of receiving an abortion. The support Planned Parenthood provides, gives a reproductive justice framework. The service sand information the provide combats the “sidewalk consolers” who aim is to dissuade women from women from carrying out their reproductive right to choose what they can do with
The social argument involves her having an abortion to maintain the status quo and saving her face in the society whilst the moral argument represents her religious views about abortions. She unsuccessfully tried to get abortion pills from the pharmacist but in the end, she committed the abortion after receiving abortion drugs illegally from the alleys at an exorbitant price. The abortion constitutes a moral question because it definitely affect the wellbeing of the unborn child. Also, it presents a moral puzzle because the actions of the mother(abortions) affects the unborn child negatively by either causing some deformity and disability to the unborn child or
He believed that we should follow the rules until we need to break them for reasons of love. He used four key principles which he aimed to fulfil in writing his theory: relativism, which refers to no fixed rules. Fletcher believes that abortion is evil but may be ‘the lesser of two evils’, morally right only if the purpose was out of love, for instance, a woman has been raped, and abortion may be an act of love. In exceptional circumstances the situation might demand a different, loving response. Abortion would be an exception in extreme circumstances.
This shows that while yes, these are tragic, a majority of the abortion cases have not been rape cases, so why keep it around for these rare occurrences? My stance on abortion is that it should be illegal, unless there are health risks involved, major ones. Other than that, I really do not feel you should get an abortion. There is always adoption. If you do not want the baby, then give it to someone who does.
There is surgical, which is where they go in vaginally and use tools to end the pregnancy (Lowen). If someone is going to have an abortion, they should go to a medical professional. An abortion done the right way is in the best interest of the mom because if later on down the road she decides to have a baby there is a decreased chance of infertility and infection. Both of the ways are not morally right bc it is still killing a child. Any act related to murder is wrong.
According to TFP Student Action, there are multiple reasons to not be pro-choice. For example, “Abortion offends God...life is started at conception...abortion is unsafe”(TFP Student Action). Knowing the opposing side is important in understanding and ultimately deciding what you agree with and who you will side with. People do not like abortion, there are people who do not like it and feel it should be legal, others do not like it but feel it is not the
It gives a women the right to end her pregnancy. The other Justice who did not agree with the majority opinion was Justice Rehnquist. Unlike Justice White, Justice Rehnquist believed that abortion was protected by the Constitution. Instead, he believed that it was not correct to base opinions on the right to privacy. He states that if a women wants to obtain an abortion, they would have to tell a doctor.
The main issue in regards to the federal protection of a fetus is whether to treat the mother and child as two separate entities or as one single person. Parties to both sides of the argument provide very compelling reasons as to why one should be considered over the other. For example, prosecutors argue that the fetus should be considered a separate entity from the mother and that any harm that is caused to the fetus by another, including the mother, should be considered a criminal act (Elliott, 2013). Opponents, however, argue that this could backfire and jeopardize a woman’s right to choose an abortion and therefore prefer to only recognize the mother as the only victim (NCSL, 2015). Another issue involves the way each state differentiate
Since data can be used for both sides of the argument it makes this point completely invalid. 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.
If a being has a right to life then it is wrong to kill it. Abortion is the termination of a fetus; therefore abortion is wrong (Thomson, 48). Much of the debate on whether if abortion is permissible or not gets caught up on this first premise that fetuses obtain personhood at conception and to deny this premise would be to claim that personhood does not start at conception which would make this argument fail. Thompson does not believe this claim that personhood is achieved at conception, but she feels that the permissibility of abortion can still be argued for even if premise (1) were true. She does this by attacking premise (3); that if a being has a right to life, then it is wrong to kill it.