Judith Jarvi's Arguments Against The Legalization Of Abortion

In “A Defense of Abortion,” Judith Thomson argues with a unique approach regarding the topic of abortion. For the purpose of the argument, Thomas agrees to go against her belief and constructs an argument based on the idea that the fetus is a person at conception. She then formulates her arguments concerning that the right to life is not an absolute right. There are certain situations where abortion is morally permissible. She believes that the fetus’s right to life does not outweigh the right for the woman to control what happens to her own body. This, however, does not mean that she agrees that in all situations the choice to have an abortion wouldn’t be self- centered or callous.

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.

According to the WHO, there are an estimated 40-50 million abortions every year around the globe. The dictionary definition for abortion is ‘the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy’, and people usually very absolutist about their stances regarding this topic. The two sides of the argument are those who are pro-choice or pro-life. The pro-choice side argue that it is the free will of the parent/s to decide on how to handle the pregnancy as unplanned pregnancies could mean a detrimental life for both the parent/s and the baby as the parent/s may not have the resources to support and take care of the baby, or are not ready for such big change and responsibility. On the other hand, the pro-life side argue that life begins at conception

As humans, we are given different rights that are meant to provide us with a chance at a good life. However, these rights can become compromised when it comes to conflicts between a pregnant woman and her fetus. The right of the fetus to live is seen as inferior to the right of the mother to have an abortion. Although each of the rights is different, it is not appropriate to say that one citizen’s rights are more superior than another citizen’s rights.

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.

Judith Thomson’s A Defense of Abortion is an article defending abortion on the grounds of rights, duties, and justice. Thomson uses various thought experiments to represent different circumstances surrounding a pregnancy and the permissibility of abortion in these circumstances. One such thought experiment that she uses in her argument is the burglar example. If you open a window and a burglar climbs into your house, anti-abortionists would argue that the burglar has a right to stay in your house and you have a duty to shelter him because you are partially responsible for his presence there. Even if you install bars specifically to keep out burglars and the burglar still manages to break in then you are still partially responsible and he still

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.

Abortion is the deliberate and direct killing of a human in the womb, and a human person is an and organism with homosapien DNA in all its cells. “Fetus” is merely term to describe the stage of development in the womb. If you are to agree that “killing a human person without justification” should not be allowed you must, therefore, agree aborting a fetus should not be allowed because, it unjustifiably kills a human person.

A woman has, undoubtedly, the freedom to procreate, but once a woman chooses to retreat from that freedom, a commotion arises. Abortion is a woman’s choice for many reasons. It’s her body, therefore, no one else can decide for said person. She may have family and or financial problems preventing her from being able to properly care for the child. Women are forced to hear both sides of the debate and feel the intensity of a decision. Abortion is the said woman’s private decision and should not be stopped by any law.

Abortion has always been a controversial topic, and with debates from the recent presidential election bringing abortion back into the spotlight, it is clear that people have varying views as well as a great misunderstanding of abortion. Often, the morality of such action is widely discussed, and stones are quickly thrown. I believe that abortion should be legally and safely obtainable in all cases for women who feel it is the best path to take in their pregnancy.

Abortion is a huge argument in the world today. “In 1973 the U.S. Supreme Court held in Roe V.Wade that the right of privacy protects women’s decisions to end unwanted pregnancy before the fetus develops.” By 2013, 70 restrictions to curb the practice of abortion from 22 states. (Funk & Wagnalls pg.1). In 2014, five health votes were examined by the House of Representatives regarding the matter of abortion. Everyone has a side to abortion from politics to democrats, people in religions to people with no religions, the people having the baby to someone who never had a baby before; everyone sees a different side to it. My believe on abortion is it should be Illegal because it kills innocent lives.

One of the biggest challenges of the melting pot that is today’s society, where we all come from different backgrounds and have different ideals is to be politically or morally correct. But what makes an action morally right or morally wrong? Utilitarianism is a moral theory that suggest that actions

Utilitarianism theory was founded by Jeremy Bentham and then got expanded by John Mill who came up with the 2 types or forms of Utilitarianism which are Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism.

Abortion has been a popular debate in the United States, especially after the Supreme Court ruling in 1973 stating a woman has the right to an abortion. In my opinion, abortion is wrong and very unethical. There are some specific instances where abortion may be acceptable, but for the most part, abortion is an evil act. Abortion should be illegal because it is the killing of an innocent human, even if he or she has not been born yet. In fact, it is proven that babies can feel pain during an abortion. I believe abortions should be outlawed, as they are unethical for many reasons.

Let’s say the government chose what you wear, what you eat, how and when you sleep, what career you pursue and who you marry. Wouldn’t you deem this strict? Unfair? Stupid even? Why then do we believe that we or the government should have a say in a woman’s choice of aborting a fetus? Why are we so against arranged marriages but so for a woman keeping a child she doesn’t want or can’t support?