Mary Anne Warren is a well-known American philosopher who has influenced the argument of the controversial issue, abortion. Today, I will be supporting Warren’s belief and theory on abortion solely being the woman’s choice and will do so by refuting other theories and philosophers including; John T Noonan, Judith Thompson, and Don Marquis. John T. Noonan revolves his argument of abortion around the idea of conception. According to Noonan, abortion is morally wrong because a being comes into existence at the point of conception. Also, being conceived by human parents automatically classifies the fetus as a human as well.
One side of the argument is Pro-Choice, this is the side that is for abortion. This side believes each woman should have the choice to do what they want with their body, this thought process is what spurned the Roe vs. Wade case. Pro-Choice focuses strictly on the women who is pregnant. The idea that it is their body is a valid point, the idea that not all pregnancies are planned or even wanted is another point that the Pro-Choice movement will argue to defend their side of this abortion debate. Pro-Choice feels that the women’s civil rights are being violated by not having the choice to decide for themselves.
Rollins does not agree with this and argues that the “Motherhood Myth” is to blame for this. The “Motherhood Myth” is “the idea that having babies is something that all normal women instinctively want and need and will enjoy doing” (Rollin 286). Rolland generally wants people to agree with her about how she feels about motherhood. To do this she tries to make herself appear more trustworthy or reliable to her audience.
Pro-Choice is the responsibility to yourself and the freedom to decide to take control of your own life process. The reasons that I wanted to do this topic are made up of common arguments against Pro-Choice the first one is a fetus is a human being, and human beings have the right to life. Number two if a women is willing to pursue a sexual relationship she knows the risks of getting pregnant and she should be responsible for her actions. Number three abortions are okay only with a rape victim. Number four adoption is
He believed that we should follow the rules until we need to break them for reasons of love. He used four key principles which he aimed to fulfil in writing his theory: relativism, which refers to no fixed rules. Fletcher believes that abortion is evil but may be ‘the lesser of two evils’, morally right only if the purpose was out of love, for instance, a woman has been raped, and abortion may be an act of love. In exceptional circumstances the situation might demand a different, loving response. Abortion would be an exception in extreme circumstances.
I believe a mother has their right to their own body. Because the mother’s, already existing, life is more important they should be able to terminate any pregnancy. For example, If a child is not apart of their plan or their life is at risk abortion should be an available option. One of the biggest reasons for legalizing abortion, I found intriguing about the Roe versus Wade law, is the case that If a child is unwanted they are more likely to develop physiological issues. Even if the parents decide to have the child and give it up, they could suffer in an unjust foster system and also become a delinquent.
Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by eliminating a fetus or embryo from the womb before it can survive on its own. There is much debate over the moral, ethical, and legal issues of abortion. There are two sides on the issue of abortion that will be discussed. The first one is pro-life. These individuals are anti-abortion, which means they agree that an embryo or fetus is a human with a right to life.
The Democratic party is pro-choice and deem that it is a woman’s right to make decisions concerning her own body, which includes the decision to terminate a pregnancy. They are staunch supporters of Roe v. Wade which was a decision made by the US Supreme Court that legalized abortion. In addition to supporting a woman’s right to choose to abort a pregnancy, the party promotes sex education which explains the various birth control methods that are available to decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies, and in turn, abortions. The Republican Party however has a contrasting view and is against abortion. They are pro-life and have the opinion that life begins at conception.
Though Money argues that intersexual individuals face contradictions between their feminine and masculine identities that should be dangerous to their mental health (333), he provides no evidence for a valid argument. In reaction to Money’s statement, Anne Fausto-Sterling in her book, Sexing the Body, redefines infant genital surgery as “cosmetic surgery performed to achieve a social result—reshaping a sexually ambiguous body so that it conforms to our two-sex system” (80). With special emphasis on the cosmetic, not medical, pressure for the surgery, Fausto-Sterling builds confidence in her argument by analyzing multiple studies on both sides of the debate. Surgeries for clitoroplasty or vaginoplasty that reinforced an alignment between gender and sexes were considered successful only if the criteria were based on cosmetic results rather than mental health or wellbeing (82-83, 88-91). In contrast, individuals who were raised as either female or male with unusual genitalia demonstrated a healthy psychological profile, even those whose sex of rearing differed from their sex of choice (96-100, 102-106).
Although no international human rights treaty explicitly mentions abortion, several signatory nations have interpreted a requirement of legalised abortion as implied by the rights addressed in treaties which include; the rights to health care, life, non-discrimination, equality, security, liberty, privacy and religion, along with the right to be free from cruel and inhuman treatment. The fact that international human rights treaties do not specify what marks the beginning of life further grants legitimacy to the argument. Such interpretation has become influential, subsequently diminishing the influence of the actual text of treaties, which has had an impact on how national legislatures confront abortion. Treaty monitoring bodies including the Human Rights Committee (HRC) and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination
Much of it is divided down the middle, and the Pro-Choice and Pro-Life stances can be clearly viewed throughout whatever work one may be reading. Often, the bias is so strong throughout literature; it is hard not to read with a persuaded mind. The Ethics of Abortion acknowledges this issue stating that many of “those who are pro-choice call their opponents ‘anti-choice’” and “those who are pro-life refer to those who favor legalized abortion as ‘pro-abortion’” (Kaczor). This book, unlike many others, strives to not use this “loaded language”, because it has a way of instantly making the reader’s biases block their mind. This, therefore, is the type of information that will be focused on for presentation in this paper.
It gives a women the right to end her pregnancy. The other Justice who did not agree with the majority opinion was Justice Rehnquist. Unlike Justice White, Justice Rehnquist believed that abortion was protected by the Constitution. Instead, he believed that it was not correct to base opinions on the right to privacy. He states that if a women wants to obtain an abortion, they would have to tell a doctor.
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.
They both agreed that there was no historical precedent for the court’s decision. They said that there’s been “no constitutional warrant for imposing such an order of priority’s on the people and the legislators of the state”. Furthermore justice white said the court should not involve itself in the issue of an abortion by creating “a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human rights by investing mothers and doctors with the constitutionally protected right to exterminate it. It was the belief of the justices that the fourteenth amendment was never intended to be used in that way by the drafters of the