Summary Of A Defense Of Abortion Judith Thomson

Judith Jarvis Thomson and Don Marquis both have extremely strong views on whether or not abortion is permissible. Judith Jarvis Thomson’s pro-choice standpoint defends a woman 's right to do what they want with their body. Don Marquis’s pro-life standpoint defends that a fetus is a person from the time of conception and it has a right to a future. Different situations come into play when it comes to abortion from rape to the mother 's life at risk that affect choices. A woman 's right to choose what to do with her body should absolutely never be taken away. Which is why I believe abortion should be permissible in all

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). The abortion Linda ended up having

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

Patrick Lee and Robert George assert that abortion is objectively immoral. One of Lee and George’s main reason for coming to this conclusion is that human embryos are living human beings. This essentially validates that abortion is indeed the process of killing a human. Another main point said by the two is a rebuttal to a common argument used in favor of abortion, which states that a potential mother has full parental responsibilities only if she has voluntarily assumed them. The rebuttal to this was that the potential mother does indeed have special responsibilities to raise the child. Similarly to the responsibilities those have with their siblings, although those responsibilities were not chosen, they are definitely there. Another main

If life was not started at conception in these cases and scientifically the unborn child could not be having any thoughts or actions running through the brain the argument would be stronger to persuade the anti-abortion side. Personally, taking away an unborn living thinking fetus’s rights just because we cannot hear them or see them physically does not seem justified. In case eight I do not see how women can just say “well it is nice of me to share my body so I will or I will not because I don’t have to,” when they have a person breathing and thinking inside of them that could be the next inventor or great doctor of the world. For Thompson to be more persuasive to the opposing side she should try discounting life at conception and arguing how the fetus can not have thoughts, therefore it cannot have desires or rights because the unborn person is 100% reliant on its mother and therefore her right has to superior to the unborn child because this fetus cannot perform one single task without the help of its

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.

If human have their own experience, they must think the experience which they have is valuable, so that the feeling of continuing their life exists. Other reason is human have their fundamental and strong desire of being alive. (Marquis,1987), therefore Fe thtus are not strongly connected with these two arguments of immorally killing. This two rivals accounts also have problem. 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. The essay does not analysis the contraception as immoral and wrong. Contraception is still a problem of preventing a potential future of a value of life. If consider the process of contraception. There are for stages of subjects (sperm, ovum, sperm ovum separately, and sperm ovum together), so there are a lot possible that harm too many futures that may occur. The question on contraception seems to challenge the future-like-ours arguments given by the essay. This is a misleading question, because the amount of sperm is quite large, and contraception does not create a combination. There is no obvious losing of

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.

This website is sponsored by Google and is used to argue both sides of many controversial issues. It is meant for readers that are for and against abortion or those that have not decided what side to choose. This website provides the pros and cons of abortion, background information, and videos related to the topic. They include that the Supreme Court believes abortion should be a fundamental right to women, however, abortion is also seen as the murder of an innocent, vulnerable, human being yet to be born. Pro-abortionists believe women rights outweigh fetus rights and anti-abortionists believe it causes embryos pain and is unfair to people that

“77% of Anti-Abortion Leaders are men, 100% of them will never be pregnant” (Barbara Kruger). Whether to continue or end a pregnancy, has been a long debated topic, extending long after the Roe v. Wade case that went all the way to the Supreme court (ProCon). Abortion is defined as the intentional termination of a pregnancy, frequently performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy (Oxford University Press). Each year, over one million women in America chose to have an abortion (WebMD). What would happen if that right to choose was taken away?

“Life begins at conception. Therefore, an un-born baby has a right to life. This court ruling is a slap in the face of humanity” (Gordon, Tacoma,

Tanya Luhrmann upholds her evidence behind every premise regarding abortions, the unfair treatment of the fetus, and “Pro-Life” beliefs. She explains that, “...the issue that provokes such anger surrounds the fetus’s right to life--its status as a potential human being” (Luhrmann, 1979, p. 1). Luhrmann addresses the importance of legalizing and creating safe procedures during abortions

Mary Anne Warren’s argument for the moral permissibility of abortion concentrates on the question of personhood and humanity with reference to a common anti-abortion argument and the discussion of potential personhood. Her argument builds on the belief that fetuses are not human beings and considers humanity through certain categories one must have in order to be considered a human person. Warren’s argument is logical, however, her argument is unsound because of a series of erroneous premises. Thus, because these premises are erroneous, an Aristotelian-type argument can be constructed that properly discusses potential persons and argues against Warren, thus aruging for the moral impermissibility of abortion.

Abortion is a very sensitive issue. Many people are constantly debating whether or not abortion should be allowed or not. Some people think abortion is very bad and that it should not be allowed at all. They think abortion is like committing murder as it is killing the human fetus. Others feel that the parents should have the right to choose and it is not murder until the baby is born. People who think it is bad say that the fetus is something alive, a human being who is partly formed and to do abortion is to kill it and commit murder. The people who think it is ok say that it is not murder until and unless the child is born. I think that abortion has to be seen about which stage the fetus is in. If it is in the very early stage, then it is

The article from our text on “A Defense of Abortion” written by Judith Jarvis Thomason states the right to have an abortion should be the pregnant woman’s decision. Everyone should have the right to do whatever they want with their body. She goes on to mention that the fetus is a “person from the time of conception” (p241). This is what those who seek abortions use as their rational. Judith comes back and contradicts the statement I just presented by stating that she does not believe the “fetus is a person at the time on conception”. So, if the fetus is not a person at the time of conception, this suggests that “everyone has the right to life” (p242). One of the arguments she present is that abortions should be allowed in some cases, such as rape, incest, and when the mother’s life is in danger. When some people think of the word abortion, they think it is about killing an innocent life that did not ask to be created. Killing is often referred to as murder, and that is wrong. Judith appears to be pro-choice when it comes to the decision regarding abortions. Pro-choice