Summary: Why Abortion Is Immoral Of Don Marquis

Thomson then shifts the argument towards the definition of abortion, according to opposing parties, which is that it is directly killing the child and how it is connected to the woman’s rights and the analogy. This idea leads to the four logical trains of reasoning. The first is that directly killing a human being is always not permissible, then an abortion may not be carried out. The second is that killing a person who is innocent is murder, than abortion may not be performed, and the third is that one should refrain from killing a innocent human is more important than keeping another alive, an abortion should not be done. The fourth is “if one's only options are directly killing an innocent person or letting a person die, one must prefer

The author states that the scripture mentions about miscarriage but it seems that the Old Testament or New Testament period did not consider abortion as a preferable option, primarily because God commanded the living and human being to have dominion over the Earth. It begs the question when and how humans came to think about abortion? As men and women, respectively, each one understand his or her participation in the reproduction and giving birth to children, I do wonder what made humans think about destroying a life, even though one want to avoid being judgmental in asking if the child is a human? Looking back at the Old Testament, and the first murder committed by a brother, one can compare the cause of killing. It is jealousy and fear of being better than the other.

When arguing about whether abortion should remain legal, there are two main arguments being used. The most common argument given on the side in favor of abortion is that a person ’s right to life does not equal a person’s right to someone else’s body. The argument given by the side opposed to the legalization of abortion is that the fetus is considered a person and that every person has a right to life therefore abortion should be illegal. I think that abortion should remain legal because I think that a person’s right to their own body outweighs the fetus’ right to life.

However, on the other hand, Bonnie Steinbock in her article “Most Abortions Are Morally Legitimate”, she says that abortions and morally acceptable because fetuses are not living beings, hence they are unconscious and don’t have any moral status because they are unaware about their interests and doesn’t feel pain or anything. She says fetuses does not have any human being rights and it depends on the mother what she wants for her body and she has all the rights to decide whether she wants to be pregnant or not because she is a living being.

One of the previously mentioned arguments for anti-vaccers was the argument that the vaccine would cause teenagers to act more immorally. This is proven to be false when Dr. Saslow, the lead author of the cancer society’s, updated guidelines and firmly states that there is “no direct connection between the vaccine and sexual activity and no reason to suggest one.” Brody’s mention of the famous doctor effectively persuades the reader to see the truth behind the research. The mention of parents being concerned about the effects these vaccines is considered a rhetorical cannon of relationship. The supposed relationship between the vaccine and physical consequences encountered after being vaccinated is a the main elements behind the anti-vaccers argument.

Should abortion be illegal? I think it should be illegal. For example, the United States Constitution grants all men the right to life. Another reason is, it is against God 's will for any man to kill. It also dwindles down the population.

Although there are many positive aspects of medically assisted suicide, there are also many negative aspects. Those who disagree with assisted suicide feel as though it is unethical. How is it ever right for us to purposefully kill another human being. As a health care providers role, it is their duty to do whatever they can to maintain the wellness of their patient. According to 8 Main Pros and Cons of Legalizing Physician Assisted Suicide (2014), all health care providers must follow the Hippocratic Oath, which in it states that physicians are unable to give deadly medications to a patient, whether requested or not and they aren’t allowed to suggest it to a terminally ill patient either.

He also mentioned that "Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all” and thus his claims triggered the protest. There is criticism all over the world but Singer is given a compliment to be a top-notch thinker as he defences himself well by pointing out the misunderstands towards his point of views (Gensler. H,

However, she continues on to state that neither the abortion of a fetus nor the killing of a neonate could count as murder of a person because both, a fetus and an infant, lack all of the plausible components of personhood. Warren explicates that in an impoverished society that is unable to care for its infants without jeopardizing the health and safety of its members, infanticide cannot be deemed morally wrong. She also claims that infanticide is morally justified in the form of euthanasia where the child is born with severe abnormalities and the parents are unable to afford the financial and emotional burdens of its treatment. Warren’s response to infanticide is completely justified because in case of life or death, the life of an actual person far outweighs the life of a potential

Physician assisted suicide, although legal in some states, should remain illegal because it goes against religious and moral beliefs. “In physician assisted suicide, the physician provides the necessary means or information and the patient performs the act” (Endlink). Supporters of assisted-suicide laws believe that mentally competent people who are in misery and have no chance of long-term survival, should have the right to die if and when they choose. I agree that people should have the right to refuse life-saving treatments, written in the patient bill of rights.

Abortion, is it unethical, yes, I believe its morally wrong. “Abortion is defined as the intentional termination of pregnancy” (Abortion 80). Some believe you are not considered life until you take your first breath, I personally believe you are considered life upon conception.

This means that if you willingly end your own life ignored to end the suffering, it will eventually come back to you. Muslims believe that life is sacred and it is a sin to take a life, therefore opposing euthanasia and assisted suicide. Islam teaches that only God decides whether or not a person shall live, and that suffering may be beneficial as it helps one test their faith (Aramesh and

Abortion is describes as a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of the fetus. In today’s society, abortion is seen in one of two ways. Abortion is described positive towards women’s right, when believed that pregnant women should have the right to choose whether they want to have an abortion or not. However, abortion is also viewed negatively with pro-life activist who stand against abortions and believe a fetus should have the right to live regardless of the mothers situation. There is no right or wrong answer when it comes to abortion, making it a controversial topic in society.

"If we legalize assisted suicide, some patients will die instead of ultimately regaining their joy in living”( Wesley Smith) others think its spiritually wrong and it goes agenst what many religions believe in. some also believe that assisted suicide is a slippery slope and some would use it for the wrong reason. “Of all the arguments against voluntary euthanasia, the most influential is the 'slippery slope ': once we allow doctors to kill patients, we will not be able to limit the killing to those who want to die”.(Peter

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. As far as the abortion debate is concerned, premise (3) is stating that a right to life is stronger than the right of a mother to decide the fate of her body so the right to life is greater than the right to privacy making abortion