Rosalind Hursthouse in her paper Virtue Theory and Abortion, handles with the moral standpoint of abortion from a virtue ethics perspective. Her research is directed towards investigating whether or not an abortion is something a virtuous person would do. Hursthouse examines the morally relevant considerations and in so doing, she rejects the standard questions used to determine the morality of an abortion such as the status of the fetus, and the rights of a women. The morally relevant considerations she sees fit to assess the moral legitimacy of an abortion are concerns with family relationship, personal circumstance, and basic biological facts. Through her considerations, Hurthouses account of virtue ethics gives us adequate moral advice in regards to the question of abortion.
With Noddings belief that abortion is less moral as the relation builds, it makes sense the relationship builds between mother and child as it gets further along in age, and progresses in the trimesters. 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.
The case is assuming that since Nancy previously had an abortion, that she does not condemn or find abortion morally reprehensible. Assuming this is true, It is consistent that Nancy can take this position and still decide against abortion for herself based on moral grounds. This is because the pro-choice argument is about just that, individual choice. In order for this to be true, there are many options for Nancy’s line of thinking. Nancy could based her decision that she has already have an abortion and it would be morally irresponsible for her to have another.
If you ask a person about murder, they would probably respond that it is bad and should not happen, but what if you ask them about abortion? 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.
Rosalind Hursthouse brings up the concept of the virtue theory in her argument. Hursthouse argues that virtue theory determines what is good and what is bad by having a set of rules in place that force us to lean towards the good in life. The set of rules will be a set of virtues that are essential for humans to thrive and flourish. Hursthouse suggests virtue theory as a way to determine whether abortion is okay or not. 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.
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.
While it is desirable to save both the baby and the mother, sometimes only one can be saved. According to my ethical theory, the woman should die because that is not murder, it is natural causes. It may seem harsh, but God knows when we will live and die, and sometimes a woman is not supposed to live through her pregnancy. If the baby dies, it is murder because the baby had a chance at life, but it was prevented from experiencing life. Life is so important to God that he says anyone who murders should die.
Thompson believes that every person has complete control over their own bodies, and that they are responsible to what happens to it, so her argument is that abortion is not morally wrong but its needed to protect oneself from harm. For example, ectopic pregnancies happen when fertilization of an egg occurs anywhere else rather than in the uterus, which is in an abnormal place, now this pregnancy could be deadly to the mother, so an abortion is needed to save the mother’s life, because she has the right to protect her own life, even if it means to kill a
Two of the three theories supports my opinion on abortion. One of the two theories is the symbolic theory. The symbolic theory is a theory that focuses on the interaction between individuals, the individual’s perception of situations, and the ways in which social life is constructed through interaction. This theory supports my opinion on abortion because, it focuses on the individual’s perception of situations. My perception on abortion is that it is wrong and should not be allowed.
Social workers take on key responsibilities that should ultimately serve their clients' best interests, however, as in any human services profession, social workers may face a number of ethical dilemmas relating to religious, personal or even cultural views. For example, there are certain religious or moral values that a social worker may hold regarding abortion. They may then be faced with ethical conflict when trying to assist a client who gets pregnant and wishes to have an abortion when they don't believe in abortion. Another example could be a service user who tells the social worker in confidence that they have stopped taking their medication in order to pursue a herbal remedy path as its more in line with their beliefs. Conflict
And will support and fund planned parenthood, except for abortion. “Should abortion be outlawed in the United States? Let each state decide.” (Johnson, 2012) Johnson believes the states should have the right to decide, each state is different and that’s what he stands for.
It has to be kept in mind though, that however irrational one might think the JW doctrine is, a devout JW truly believes that they will forgo eternal salvation upon receiving a blood transfusion. Therefore a JW considers withholding blood as an act of beneficence even when they have to choose death over life.
Saying someone is pro-life means they believe the government has a duty to preserve all human life regardless of intent of quality of life. The point of conflict between the two movements is abortion. Pro-lifers argues that even undeveloped life is sacred and must be protected. Pro-choicers argue that if human personhood cannot be determined e.g. in pregnancies prior to the point of viability, The government doesn 't have the privilege to hinder women 's
Libertarians believe in personal freedom, and this personal freedom should not be infringed upon unless the freedom being taken harms another party (Sandel 59-60). This freedom is much like the freedom Haidt supports, having liberties without an outside force affecting them with the exception of pleasures and inclinations. Libertarians believe in abortion because they believe in personal rights. If a woman doesn’t want her baby, she shouldn’t have to have it. The baby would be impressing on the woman’s personal rights; therefore, due to the violation of rights, what should be removed is the source of the problem.
The history of Family Planning has been a long hard struggle, but ultimately it is valuable to the human rights of American people. The fact that Planned Parenthood provides abortion as a minor part of their services should not cause legislators to make it any less accessible. Planned Parenthood is valuable and funding should continue