It could not be possible for killing an innocent child to be right. Of course, in extremely unfortunate occurrences that occur in impregnation from rape, it seems like an abortion could be the right action. However, you can argue for adoption, which will then lead to happiness for more people. In this debate, the question of quality versus quantity rises. It seems that a Utilitarian would argue that the quantity only matters, but in this case, should we not consider the quality of the happiness in the people in these
I don't think they should because why have an abortion when you weren't responsible to prevent that from happening , i think abortions should be illegal in the United States because its not right to take away a child's life because you weren't responsible. People who are pro choice think it's up to them to make the choice because it's their responsibility but why should they make that choice if they weren't responsible in the first place, and why do that to an innocent baby because if that were you i'm sure you would want to live. People are taking that choice away from a baby that could have a good future and will be happy they're
It is jealousy and fear of being better than the other. Thinking of the women like Sarah who did not bear any child until the birth of Issac, it appears that the use of medicine was not in action in that period. It was God’s grace and power making things impossible. However, in the world of medicine, when there are certain circumstances and a crucial decision has to be made, people like Aristotle and Plato recommend abortion. In a contemporary society, abortions are part of one’s life, whether as a single parent or a couple that is unmarried and lives
Ultimately, the decision to end a pregnancy shouldn’t be taken lightly, but should be the woman’s choice, and no one else’s. It is not up to one group of people to decide what is ethically appropriate for everyone else. Frankley, the pro-life movement is sexist and abortions are justifiable because the fetus is not yet a person. In the Journal Of Philosophy, Don Marquis wrote an article
As previously explained, marriage may seem to ruin a woman’s dreams and future achievements, but that is not the case in feminism. Feminism is important in every aspect in everyone’s life. However, feminism seems to be an idealistic concept to those like Sourdi and her mother. Nea tries to insists that Sourdi doesn’t have to do the assigned ‘gender roles’, ““I have to go. The baby, she’s hungry you know.” “Let him handle it.” (Chai 144).” Nea is independent and wants Sourdi to be the same.
McMahan believes that we start to exist in late pregnancy when we start to develop consciousness. We start to have moral status at this time. McMahan response to Marquis would be until this point, there would be no sense to talk about a fetus having a FLO. McMahan’s answer depends on the distinction between killing a being and preventing one from existing. McMahan explains that a sperm and ovum are not developed as a human like us, therefore, we are not killing a being only preventing one from existing.
In my paper I am discussing the debate of abortion in terms of induced, which is the intentional termination of pregnancy through drugs or surgery, and therapeutic, that is the abortion performed to preserve the life and health of the mother. In this paper, I take a strong stance against the acceptance of abortion both legally and socially. The main arguments used against pro-life (support for the abolishment of abortion), is based on the valuing of life. To those who are pro-choice (liberals, etc. ), argue that it is the woman’s choice to decide whether or not to have an abortion based on the grounds of valuing her life.
About the 14-year-old girl case, the claim that postponement of a birth is better off for the possible child is subject to two interpretations. The de re claim is that her act makes the particular child that she conceives better-off than that particular child would otherwise have been. The de dicto claim is that her act does not make whatever person turns out to satisfy the description ‘her child’ better off than whatever person would otherwise have turned out to satisfy the description ‘her child’ would have been. In the de re sense, the girl does not make her child better off even if she postpones having a child, because the child who would be born when the girl is a 14-year-old is different from the child who will be born in the future. By contrast, Hare argues that because the girl plays a special role to her own child as a mother, she has an obligation to be concerned for the well-being of her child in the de dicto sense.
Rosalind Hursthouse has a very different opinion on abortion and does not relate it to the murder of children or the rights of women. Instead, she justifies it through what a virtuous person would do. In the case study with the Thompson’s, Hursthouse would relate it to the relevance of the familiar biological facts and how pregnancy is a known result of sexual intercourse. The fact that Linda’s fetus is four months old would not be of relevance in Hursthouse’s opinion as clear lines are not visible as to when the fetus is attached and developed. The main focus of Hursthouse would be to question whether the abortion would be a result of a person acting “virtuously or viciously or neither” (Hursthouse 474).
With that argument, how come women can't breastfeed with her body to care for her children? How come women are okay to sell their bodies and sometimes become too extreme for the public to see, but one cannot breastfeed for the welfare of her baby she loves and cares for? I would like to point out that all men and women are important but this issue is certainly taking the rights of women and mothers who gave birth to us and raised us at least some time in our lives. We need to help them be recognized again until they are not hurt or discriminated just because they don't fit to what ignorant or desirous young or old, and immature people stop having to spit out what they think to the woman who may be going through some hardship after giving birth. It is likely that women get depression after pregnancy and birth, it is common.
Since the fetus is depended on the mother does that make them have less rights than any other person? These questions must be answered before abortion can be ruled to be unconstitutional. Until the public becomes more aware of these pressing questions abortion will still remain legal and constitutional. Both sides have legitimate arguments to defend their beliefs and neither group should be looked down upon by the other for having different values and beliefs. Abortion to this day is still a very controversial topic and one of the most debated issues.
Disclaimer: This paper will not discuss the argument of whether abortion should be legal or not. The pro-choice/pro-life debate is multi-faceted and I believe where you stand has a lot to do with your core fundamental beliefs. According to Dr. Jesudason, a nephrologist at the Royal Adelaide hospital, “abortion is arguably one of the most polarizing issues in American politics today” (Jesudason 1). I will however, be discussing the importance of accessible and affordable family planning and the impact it can have on a country and a woman’s life. Naturally, abortion is one aspect of Family Planning so it will be discussed in regards to my argument.
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.
An additional argument for these ultrasound laws that AUL puts forward is that “women will feel bonded to their children after seeing them on the ultrasound screen” and once that bond is formed “a woman no longer feels ambivalent toward her pregnancy and actually begins to feel invested in her unborn child” (AUL, 2013, p.3). The abortion-rights counter argument comes from organizations like the Guttmacher Institute that claims that these ultrasound laws are a “perversion of medical ethics in general and the informed consent process in particular” and they will not have a substantial impact on reducing abortion rates as viewing the ultrasound will not persuade the woman to forego the abortion (Benson Gold, 2009). Other abortion advocates and providers argue that viewing an ultrasound might cause psychological harm to the woman seeking the abortion and they would like to protect the women from such pain (Graham, Ankrett, & Killick,
Pro-life believe that it’s not fair because once that child finds out he/she will wonder why the mother didn’t want them, or the mother if she decides to keep the baby there’s chances that the child could be abused or neglected because of the circumstances under which the child was conceived. Pro-life still believe adoption is a better idea under those circumstances. Who knows what big things that child could do in the future and you’re taking away the chance for them to become