Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The ethics of abortion
Abortion as a moral and ethical dilemma
Permissibility of abortion
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The ethics of abortion
Abortion is “the act of extracting the unborn human being from the womb”. (Lee and George, 2005, 37-51) Some people consider abortions to be completely immoral while others support abortion and like to ensure the privileges of women rather than an unborn child. Numerous tests can be made to choose for coveted characteristics, for example, deafness in an unborn child. Would it be morally wrong for a listening to couple to choose against deafness or for a hard of hearing couple to choose for deafness? In The Moral Permissibility of Abortion, Margaret Olivia Little argues that abortion is often morally permissible. (Little 2005, 51) I will argue against Margaret Olivia Little who believes that both couples have a decent reason for abortion because …show more content…
Although some people including philosopher Mary Anne Warren acknowledge that human development is a progressive methodology, and that it is nearly impossible to mark a specific moment at which a fetus becomes biologically distinct in its ability to classify as a person. (Warren, 1973, 43-61) Warren proposes that we should assign personhood at the moment of birth rather than the moment of conception, based on the theory that the establishment of social bonds begins at this point. (Warren, 1973, 43-61) However, I believe that numerous hopeful mothers already form a mental bond with their unborn child where they would cooperate with the child in the utero. For instance, a study of women who had gone through a miscarriage showed that they were 18% more depressed, 31% more nervous, and 17% more prone to nervous breakdowns. (Neville, 2005) This not only shows that women are able to develop strong emotional bonds with their fetus, but they may suffer psychological trauma once in the event that it is gone. On the other hand, Singer says that it is wrong to kill an innocent human being (Singer, 1986, 125-134). He argues that in the initial eighteen weeks of pregnancy, where the being cannot even be esteemed conscious, a fetus nor a newborn have the key attributes required for personhood: rationality, self-consciousness, awareness, autonomy, pleasure and pain (Singer, 1986, 125-134). However, I disagree with …show more content…
Consider Thomson’s thought experiment: “you wake up in the hospital to find yourself connected to a violinist with fatal kidney ailment. In fact, you were kidnapped to provide life to the violinist for the next nine months” (Little, 2005, 51-62). You have a choice to unplug the cord that would kill the violinist, or to endure the nine months. This example strongly illustrates that it is perfectly acceptable for the person to detach himself because the violinist has an absolute right to live since he is alive and is not at fault. The connected person has no indebtedness to remain connected for nine months because it was not a voluntary choice and the violinist has no right to use another person’s body (Little, 2005, 51-62). Thomson uses this example to argue that a mother has no obligation to carry a child in her womb for the full nine months if she has not assumed responsibility for it. No one is morally required to make large sacrifices for nine months in order to keep another person alive. In contrast, gestation period is something that a couple planned and even if it is not, all individuals sexually active are mindful of the conceivable results. Due to this, the fetus number into an obligation and the pregnancy spell into
Likewise, Thompson holds that a pregnant woman possesses the right to defend herself against her attacker. No matter if the invader is a rapist attempting to harm her from outside or a foetus that may harm her from the inside. The woman still has a moral liberty to repel her attacker by killing the intruder. Killing a person and abolishing their ‘right to life’ cannot be named as immoral when performed in self-defence. Therefore, an abortion is permissible in the ‘extreme case’ whereby continuing with the pregnancy may result in serious injury or death of the woman. However, it can be argued that although it is permissible to act in self-defence against an invader, the foetus is no such invader and should not be treated like one. Unlike the violinist who was artificially attached to you, the foetus is surviving due to the mother’s biological organs and by the natural processes of reproduction and this yields a special relationship. Therefore, this appears to be a crucial difference between the violinist and the foetus. The natural environment of the violinist is not your body, whereas the natural environment of the foetus is within the mother’s womb. Furthermore, the violinist is trespassing because your body is not their natural environment whereas a foetus cannot
Abortion has been the topic of controversy for many decades. Many people believe that when a woman terminates a pregnancy, she is committing murder and others argue that a woman has the right to choose life or abortion. There are different procedures to choose when having an abortion, depending on the gestational age and the woman 's health a pill form abortion may be used up to 9 weeks gestation (mifepristone and misoprostol), but for women who are over 12-weeks gestation (late-term abortion), surgical abortion is used (Berer 25). In 1973, the supreme court ruled that abortion was to be legalized, Roe vs. Wade. Women were given the legal right to choose to terminate their pregnancies and make the correct arrangements for their decisions. Different states have different restrictions to accessing abortion procedures, making the woman 's choice to terminate pregnancy less accessible. Restricting a woman 's access to appropriate abortion clinics limits her right to choose.
“I argue that it is personhood, and not genetic humanity, which is the fundamental basis for membership in the moral community” (Warren 166). Warren’s primary argument for abortion’s permissibility is structured around her stance that fetuses are not persons. This argument relies heavily upon her six criteria for personhood: A being’s sentience, emotionality, reason, capacity for communication, self-awareness, and having moral agencies (Warren 171-172). While this list seems sound in considering an average, healthy adult’s personhood, it neither accounts for nor addresses the personhood of infants, mentally ill individuals, or the developmentally challenged. Sentience is one’s ability to consciously feel and perceive things around them. While it is true that all animals and humans born can feel and perceive things within their environment, consider a coma patient, an individual suspended in unconsciousness and unable to move their own body for indeterminate amounts of time. While controversial, this person, whom could be in the middle of an average life, does not suddenly become less of a person
In Dan Marquis’ article, “Why Abortion is Immoral”, he argues that aborting a fetus is like killing a human being already been born and it deprives them of their future. Marquis leaves out the possible exceptions of abortion that includes: a threat to the mom’s life, contraceptives, and pregnancy by rape. First, I will explain Marquis’ pro-life argument in detail about his statements of why abortion is morally wrong. Like in many societies, killing an innocent human being is considered morally wrong just like in the United States. Second, I will state my objection to Marquis’ argument through examining the difference between a human being already born future compared to a potential fetus’s future. Thus, Marquis’ argument for his pro-life
Judith Jarvis Thomson, a 20th century philosopher, offers her argument defending abortion in her paper, “A Defense of Abortion”. She states initially that the fetus has a right to life, although contrary to her argument, she uses it as a premise to develop her thoughts. In short, Thomson says that the fetus’s right to life does not outweigh the woman’s right to control her body. She forces readers to participate in a thought experiment as she gives an odd example about a violinist suffering from kidney failure. The violist is facing death and in order to prevent it, he needs your help. Because you are the only one with his blood type, you are the only hope for him. You have been kidnapped by the Society of Music lovers and, without your consent, hooked up to him and you are filtering his blood and keeping him alive. In order to save his life, you must remain connected to him and support him for nine whole months. Thomson then asks if it is morally wrong to disagree to remain connected to the violinist. It is quite noble to agree to save the man’s life but should his right to life automatically force you to sacrifice nine months of yours?
The standard argument against abortion claims that the fetus is a person and therefore has a right to life. Thomson shows why this standard argument against abortion is a somewhat inadequate account of the morality of abortion.
By critically examining Thomson’s (1971) three analogies; the Violinist, the Henry Fonda analogy and the People Seeds analogy, all three analogies fail to show that it is not unjust to deny the foetus the right to the mother’s body. Therefore, the foetus has a right to not be killed unjustly and have the use of the mother’s womb.
To conclude, Marquis’s argument that abortion is wrong is incorrect. Thomson gives many examples of why Marquis is wrong, including that the mother’s right to her body
Judith Jarvis Thomson, in "A Defense of Abortion", argues that even if we grant that fetuses have a fundamental right to life, in many cases the rights of the mother override the rights of a fetus. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants the initial contention that the fetus has a right to life at the moment of conception. However, Thomson explains, it is not self-evident that the fetus's right to life will always outweigh the mother's right to determine what goes on in her body. Thomson also contends that just because a woman voluntarily had intercourse, it does not follow that the fetus acquires special rights against the mother. Therefore, abortion is permissible even if the mother knows the risks of having sex. She makes her points with the following illustration. Imagine that you wake up one morning and find that you have been kidnapped, taken to a hospital, and a famous violist has been attached to your circulatory system. You are told that the violinist was ill and you were selected to be the host, in which the violinist will recover in nine months, but will die if disconnected from you before then. Clearly, Thomson argues, you are not morally required to continue being the host. In her essay she answers the question: what is the standard one has to have in order to be granted a right to life? She reflects on two prospects whether the right to life is being given the bare minimum to sustain life or ir the right to life is merely the right not to be killed. Thomson states that if the violinist has more of a right to life then you do, then someone should make you stay hooked up to the violinist with no exceptions. If not, then you should be free to go at a...
In her article Thomson starts off by giving antiabortionists the benefit of the doubt that fetuses are human persons. She adds that all persons have the right to life and that it is wrong to kill any person. Also she states that someone?s right to life is stronger than another person?s autonomy and that the only conflict with a fetuses right to life is a mother?s right to autonomy. Thus the premises make abortion impermissible. Then Thomson precedes to attacks the premise that one?s right to autonomy can be more important to another?s right to life in certain situations. She uses quite an imaginative story to display her point of view. Basically there is a hypothetical situation in which a very famous violinist is dying. Apparently the only way for the violinist to survive is to be ?plugged? into a particular woman, in which he could use her kidneys to continue living. The catch is that the Society of Music Lovers kidnapped this woman in the middle of the night in order to obtain the use of her kidneys. She then woke up and found herself connected to an unconscious violinist. This obviously very closely resembles an unwanted pregnancy. It is assumed that the woman unplugging herself is permissible even though it would kill the violinist. Leading to her point of person?s right to life is not always stronger than another person?s right to have control over their own body. She then reconstructs the initial argument to state that it is morally impermissible to abort a fetus if it has the right to life and has the right to the mother?s body. The fetus has the right to life but only has the right to a ...
In Thomson’s article, “A Defense of Abortion,” Thomson argues that abortion is not impermis-sible because she agrees with the fact that fetus has already become a human person well before birth, from the moment of conception (Thomson, 268 & 269). Besides that, she also claims that every person has a right to live, does so a fetus, because a fetus is a person who has a right to live.
Mary Anne Warren contends that abortion is morally permissible on the grounds that a fetus is not a person. In her eyes, although, fetuses are genetically distinct humans they are not people because they do not have the necessary characteristics for personhood: sentience, reasoning, emotionality, the capacity to communicate, self-awareness, and moral agency. For her, the lack of these characteristics do not necessarily allude that a fetus is not a person only that it belittles the confidence that they are a person- or in other words creates doubt of their personhood. In this essay, I shall argue when it comes to emotionality Warren sets the bar too high and indoingso runs the risk of wrongly overlooking different types of emotionality, which
middle of paper ... ... She argues that fetuses are not persons or members of the moral community because they don’t fulfill the five qualities of personhood she has fashioned. Warren’s arguments are valid, mostly sound, and cover just about all aspects of the overall topic. Although she was inconsistent on the topic of infanticide, her overall writing was well done and consistent.
In such positions, the resolution to terminate a pregnancy may be argued as the most ethical choice. The mother is also considered to have a reasonable level of ethical responsibility to the fetus, because she did not take enough precautions to ensure avoid conception (Cline, 2014). The mother’s ethical responsibility to the fetus may not be enough to deprive her of choice of abortion; it may be enough to ascertain when an abortion can be ethically selected (Cline, 2014). When a woman does not wish to carry an abortion to term, it will be unethical for law or any other person to force them to do so.... ...
One of the most debated subjects throughout the world is abortion. Abortion is the premature termination of pregnancy by spontaneous or induced expulsion of a nonviable fetus from the uterus (Dictionary). In certain circumstances, abortion could be beneficial for the mother with factors such as: age, rape, financial stability, and complications that could long-term harm the potential mother and child. Women of all ages are entitled to their right to abort regardless of how morally right or wrong it may be. Some people believe abortion goes against their religious and cultural backgrounds. However, other people believe because it is the woman’s body they should be liable to do as they please. Whatever the situation