More handpicked essays just for you.
Abortion as a moral and ethical dilemma
3 opposing viewpoints on abortion
Discussing the viewpoints about abortion
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Most people define abortion as the deliberate termination of a pregnancy and it still one of the most popular topics today. In the reading of On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion by Mary Anne Warren, she argues that it is morally permissible for a woman to have an abortion. There are many arguments about abortion that include people saying it is equivalent to murder and also saying that telling a woman she can’t have an abortion deprives her of her right to make the decisions about her own body. Some of the topics that are being argued is 1) is a human fetus really a human being. 2) fetal development and the right to life. 3) if so, what is the moral and legal status of an abortion? The first argument is does a human fetus really count
In her essay “A Feminist Defense of Abortion” Sally Markowitz addresses the Autonomy defense as not being feminist in nature. She comes to this conclusion by recognizing that the right to bodily autonomy is not just a female right but a right that is innate for every person, male or female. Markowitz then asserts that the human right to bodily autonomy in regard to abortion should not be a gender neutral defense. Many feminists have come to the conclusion that the Autonomy Defense works against women in the courts as it shifts the focus away from gender inequality. Feminists have adopted the belief that sometimes gender should be relevant in claiming rights. To fail to claim a right on the basis of gender in the situation of abortion would obscure the relationship between reproductive practices and their oppression.
“I intend to judge things for myself; to judge wrongly, I think, is more honorable than not to judge at all.” What author Henry James meant by this was that it is better to make up one’s mind and have an opinion than to remain complacent, such as the case of Mary Anne Warren. Warren’s arguments for abortion’s possible permissibility are lacking in substance. The aim of my paper is to discuss Warren’s insufficient criteria for personhood and address the problem with her concept of potential personhood.
The topic of my paper is abortion. In Judith Jarvis Thomson's paper, “A Defense of Abortion,” she presented a typical anti-abortion argument and tried to prove it false. I believe there is good reason to agree that the argument is sound and Thompson's criticisms of it are false.
As to any argument, there are two opposing sides when it comes to the matter of abortions. These two opposers usually refer to themselves as “pro-life” and “pro choice”. Pro-life supporters maintain that abortion is wrong and pro-choice believe that it is a woman’s freedom to choose her pregnancy decisions. When it comes to the topic of abortions, most of us will readily agree that it’s a woman’s choice to decide what her reproductive decisions are, i.e. pro-choice. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is in the question of whether or not abortion is a fundamental right granted to women by the Constitution. Whereas some are convinced that a fetus is considered alive at conception, usually citing the word of God, others maintain that
Famous author Dr. Seuss states that a “person is a person no matter how small.”
Mary Anne Warren’s “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion” describes her justification that abortion is not a fundamentally wrong action for a mother to undertake. By forming a distinction between being genetically human and being a fully developed “person” and member of the “moral community” that encompasses humanity, Warren argues that it must be proven that fetuses are human beings in the morally relevant sense in order for their termination to be considered morally wrong. Warren’s rationale of defining moral personhood as showcasing a combination of five qualities such as “consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, capacity of communication, and self-awareness” forms the basis of her argument that a fetus displays none of these elements that would justify its classification as a person and member of the morally relevant community (Timmons 386).
There are many factors that are taken into consideration when determining if abortion is morally permissible, or wrong including; sentience of the fetus, the fetuses right to life, the difference between adult human beings and fetuses, the autonomy of the pregnant woman, and the legality of abortion. Don Marquis argues that abortion is always morally wrong, excluding cases in which the woman is threatened by pregnancy, or abortion after rape, because fetuses have a valuable future. Mary Anne Warren contends that late term abortions are morally permissible because birth is the most significant event for a fetus, and a woman’s autonomy should never be suspended.
In the article 'A Defense of Abortion' Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that abortion is morally permissible even if the fetus is considered a person. In this paper I will give a fairly detailed description of Thomson main arguments for abortion. In particular I will take a close look at her famous 'violinist' argument. Following will be objections to the argumentative story focused on the reasoning that one person's right to life outweighs another person's right to autonomy. Then appropriate responses to these objections. Concluding the paper I will argue that Thomson's 'violinist' argument supporting the idea of a mother's right to autonomy outweighing a fetus' right to life does not make abortion permissible.
Mary Anne Warren was a philosophy professor and distinguished by her beliefs on the topic of abortion. Warren’s thoughts on the morality of abortion were formed based on who is included in the ‘moral community’. Her thoughts on who should be included in the moral community are based on ‘personhood’.
Abortion by definition means the way of ending pregnancy by removing fetus from the womb before it is able to survive independently. Abortion is an extremely debatable issue because while some people are completely against it, others believe that a woman should have the right to choose. Abortion decision is like killing own child or killing an innocent human life before coming out from uterus. I will explain how a human life is being destroyed, the process in which they destroy the fetus, and how to avoid this situation all together I believe that abortion is morally impermissible.
Abortion is a widely arguable issue that begs the question whether a mother has the right to abort her child or if the child has the right to life. Abortion is the deliberate removal of a fetus from the womb of the mother, resulting in the death of the child. Abortions are said to be morally permissible after a certain number of months after the mother is pregnant because of the development of the embryo to have a brain. The other side of the argument is that right when the mother is pregnant, it is wrong for the mother to abort because the embryo has a right to life as soon as the mother is pregnant. This is a primary concern for anti-abortion supporters. Mary Warren takes this pro-life stance to defend the life of the fetus by not allowing abortions under any circumstance in her case, “On the Moral and legal status of Abortion”, 1973. Warren argues whether abortion is morally permissible at any stage of pregnancy and under any circumstances. Warren’s argument for her stance on abortion is stated as 1) It is wrong to kill human beings. 2) Fetuses are innocent human beings. 3) Therefore it is wrong to kill fetuses. She claims that the credit for her argument lies in the definition of the term ‘human being’. The definition of human is a member of the biological species Homo Sapien. This includes adults, children, and also fetuses that are unborn in the mother’s womb. This is the argument for why abortion is not morally permissible in any case because fetuses are innocent human beings with an inherent right to life as a biological organism. Along with a moral sense of community, human is being a member of the moral community o...
Abortion has been a very controversial subject over these past few decades. Every time you pick up a paper or magazine it seems there is always some protest regarding abortion, whether it be for fetal rights or women's rights. According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica the definition of abortion is "the expulsion of a fetus from the uterus before it has reached the stage of viability (in human beings, usually about the 20th week of gestation). An abortion may occur spontaneously, in which case it is also called a miscarriage, or it may be brought on purposefully, in which case it is often called an induced abortion." This paper will focus only on those abortions which are considered to be induced and will present the argument to both sides, considering both the argument for Pro-life as well as for Pro-choice.
“On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion” by Mary Anne Warren is an in depth analysis of what, in Warren’s opinion, it is exactly that defines a person and human being, the moral community, fetal development and the right to life, potential personhood and the right to life, and infanticide. Warren believes that emotion and morality should be entirely separate, and that abortion should be legal for all women, as denial would be stripping women of basic human rights, the rights that a woman holds over an unborn fetus. I personally agree with her arguments on these topics as I agree that women should be allowed to have abortions on their own terms, without subjection of authority or society telling her what she can and cannot do, as well as I agree for the most part on her view of what a person is, potential personhood not outweighing the choice of abortion, and her reasoning on what defines a person of the moral community.
In my argumentative coursework I am arguing that abortion is wrong and not to be mistaken with 'Abortion should be made illegal.' I will explain later why I have made this statement. Abortion is the termination of an unborn child in its mother's womb for up to twenty four weeks of the pregnancy or in special circumstances e.g. Disability diagnosis a termination right up until the mother goes in to labour. I think the above definition is an easier and less harsh way of saying that abortion is the murdering of a human being. There are several reasons why abortion is legal and several reasons why it shouldn?t be.
Some people believe an abortion is moral because the fetus is not human until birth. The counter argument for that belief would be the fetus has the potential to become human. Therefore, fetuses deserve the same right to life like every human and abortions deny the right to life to fetuses. “Fetuses also have valuable futures, since there are experiences, activities, and projects in their futures that they will come to value. Thus, killing a fetus deprives it of a future like ours and is therefore seriously presumptively immoral” (Nichols 494). There are a few cases when abortion is justified. “If all fetuses have a right to life, and if abortion always involves killing, the fetus then abortion can be justified only when either (1) the fetus is not innocent, or (2) the killing is not direct” (Sumner 107). Abortion are only justified when the continuation of the pregnancy will kill the mother or the pregnancy is due to rape or incest, but that only counts for less than one percent of abortions