The desirability is not necessary condition for the side that abortion is moral. The victims are not only the people who suffer a “real” disaster, or crimes, fetus can also be a victim. Though victim is not a sentience being, and they apparently fail to the requirement of mentation. Empathy faces the risk of ending of life, they directly do harm on them. For more, contraception is an attempt to question future-like-ours theory.
Mary Anne Warren argues that human beings have a special criterion of which foetuses lack . In the biological sense a foetus is a human but any further sense of being human is lacking; consequently, in the moral sense a first trimester foetus is not human. As Warren goes on to argue, as foetuses are not sentient, rational and do not have a conception of themselves; they are therefore not a human being in the full moral sense, but instead only genetically human. As a foetus is not capable to be apart of a moral community, the foetus is therefore not a human and therefore makes abortion morally permissible. It has been argued that until the foetus is sentient, it has no moral status and has no psychological connection with their potential future; therefore they are owed very little in the way of moral protection.
The liberal position on abortion attempts to refute the second premise by pointing out that the fetus is only a member of the species Homo sapiens; it is not a ‘person.’ Peter Singer clearly distinguishes between a member of the species Homo sapiens and a person by characterizing a person as one who possesses capacities of rationality, awareness, autonomy and self-consciousness. A fetus possesses none of these capacities, and therefore, Singer believes that killing a fetus is morally permissible. This description of a ‘person’ also proves that there is no significant difference between the mental capacity of a premature infant and a late-stage fetus, and this description may provide the illusion that there is no difference between undergoing an abortion and committing infanticide. However, this illusion shall be countered by my
These opponents believe that the law is worth it because of the health benefits for the citizens. However, this argument has utterly no grounds because the ends should never justify the means. Forcing the citizens, who bear in mind, most of whom are adults, to do something for their own good is completely wrong. While it may be the right choice, the people should at least be able to make their own decision. The government shouldn’t have to baby their people, they can think for themselves.
On the other hand, not stating that this is the correct side since no one will ever know, I believe that only God should decide when it is someone’s turn to die. I don’t believe that we should have the power to decide one’s fate. An important part to recognize that is not talked a lot about in this topic is that if euthanasia and assisted suicide is illegal, then doctors won’t have the pressure and burden of having to take someone’s life, even if the person wanted it. These people are educated to be doctors, not killers. They are meant to use everything in their power to save patients, not take away their life.
People that support abortion often cite the fact that abortion is permissible because a fetus has no rational capacities like children and adults do. This same way of thinking means that a fetus has no choice or ability to make decision when it comes to whose womb they inhabit as a result of failed contraception. Again, I am not arguing that abortion would not be morally permissible in the case of failed contraception but I am saying that there are key differences in intent and rational capacities between a malicious burglar and an unknowing fetus that weaken this analogy. Thomson also says that a burglar who breaks in should not have a right to stay in your house. While this is true, there are very few cases where a burglar will stay in your house if there intent is to steal something and get away.
I disagree with all of these points. It might be the mother 's individual right to decide if she wants an abortion, but what about the individual rights of the unborn child? People can 't use their own rights to take away the rights of others. When people say that it 's not a person that their killing, just a clump of cells, they are being extremely naive. It might not be a formed human yet, but it will be.
Additionally, when Dr. Joudi elucidated on the subject of how prostate cancer does not cause prodrome, I would have believed that primary prevention, such as PSA screening is imperative. Furthermore, the information that left me baffled, however, made the reasoning of USPSTF discouraging PSA screening lucid is that there were no oncologist or urologist in the USPSTF board. Nevertheless, I believe if there were oncologists or urologists on the board, I am certain there would have been a question of, “Well, do you have any better ideas?”. To say nothing of, through my astonishment with the USPSTF reaction to PSA screening, I felt utterly amazed about the robotic technology that doctors utilized today in Dr. Joudi
The debate whether abortion is morally permissible or not permissible is commonly discussed between the considerations of the status of a fetus and ones virtue theory. A widely recognized theory of pro-choice advocates can be thought to be that their ethical view is that fetus’s merely are not humans because they lack the right to life since they believe a fetus does not obtain any sort of mental functions or capability of feelings. Although this may be true in some cases it is not in all so explaining the wrongness of killing, between the common debates whether a fetus does or does not obtain human hood, should be illustrated in a way of a virtuous theory. The wrongness of killing is explained by what the person or fetus is deprived of, such as their right to life; not by means of a heart beat or function of one’s body, but by the fact that it takes their ability of potentially growing into a person to have the same human characteristics as we do.
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.