...argument for a future like ours makes the assumption that every life will be good and that everyone will want to have a future like ours. The potential life of the fetus could be great or terrible. Just because the life of the fetus could be great does not mean that it has the right to use the mother’s body. The mother still retains the right to an abortion because the fetus depends on her for survival, regardless of its potential.
What does it mean to be Pro-Life or Pro-Choice? Pro-Life means those who oppose abortion for any reason, In contrast, Pro-Choice means those who argue everybody has the right to decide if they wish to seek an abortion or not. Glenn I. Cohen, Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, argues that Pro-Life advocates firmly stand on the concept of, “Fetuses are persons and get some of the rights of persons from early on in their development, particularly the right of inviolability” (88). Christian and other religious groups confidently believe an embryo transforms into a human being as soon as conception occurs. What this means is that once the male sperm connects with the female egg, that is when the embryo becomes a living person and any abortion that takes place is killing a human being. In contrast, scientifically the newly founded embryo is not a human at all, but just a bunch of cells dividing. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, Catholic priest and philosopher, a fetus is not a human being because it does not possess language or articulated thought - one of the defining aspects of human nature (qtd. in Eco 51). Theoretically speaking, a fetus is not a human until it can think and talk. With that being clarified, the rest of the essay will first include arguments for and then arguments against
When it comes to abortion one can not state that there is simply a conflict between a woman’s right to privacy/autonomy of her body (i.e. the right to choose) and the right to life (particularly the right of the fetus to be born). It is also not adequate to claim that the alternating theories of when life is created is at the core of the conflict over abortion, because the definition of the creation of life does not determine when and why the state will protect the right of the life of the fetus. The overlying issue is a combination of both claims. By carefully analyzing the moral and empirical claims surrounding the abortion issue, we believe that the best position for our candidate is one of pro-choice with some restrictions.
The next issue to be discussed is experience. Pro-choice would argue that one who has experienced, lived and suffered, one who possess memories, is more human than one who has not. This distinction is not serviceable. An embryo after eight weeks is experiencing, as it is responsive to touch and sensation. Furthermore, if a human has lost his memory due to say aphasia, then is he not human? Based on this issue he would not be. Nor would the man who has never loved or learned, for these are certainly human experiences.
"Let 's get real about abortions " is an argumentative article ,in which Mr. david Frum gives his opinion on Richard Mourdock 's comment about rape that sparked a firestorm of discussion. Mr. Frum disagrees with Mourdock, who says that a raped woman should carry the baby , if she gets pregnant : but Frum totally disagrees because he thinks that a raped woman should kill the fetus if she desires , because he thinks that she does have not to carry the rapist own child by saying :"OK, Mr. Mourdock, you say your principles require a raped woman to carry the rapist 's child to term." Frum also believes that even a woman decides to keep the baby after she got raped , the government should give her some financial aid covering all what the baby and herself need while she can 't work , by showing what the raped would need. " What would you do for her in return? Would you pay her medical expenses? Compensate her for a time lost to work? Would you pay for the child 's upbringing? College education?" . David Frum 's main idea does not come until the last part of the article. He developed then jumped to his thesis , and it is : how will Americans support all their
According to Don Marquis, “Abortion is presumptively very seriously wrong, where the presumption is very strong – as strong as the presumption that killing another adult human being is wrong” (Marquis, p. 371). In his work Why Abortion Is Immoral? , he argues that the main reason why it is morally impermissible to kill an adult human is neither the effect on the killer nor the people left by the victim but because killing him deprives him of his future’s value. All the activities, projects, experiences and enjoyments he could have in the future are taken away from him (Marquis, p. 367). Therefore, killing anyone who has a “futur...
Each of us desires a small hint to what our futures may hold, but few desire the answer to come to them on a stick with two pink lines. An unexpected pregnancy has the potential to become the greatest blessing or an inconceivable challenge depending on the individual and her current place in life. Upon confirming an unexpected pregnancy, each female must evaluate what choice is the best for her and her potential child. Regardless of the decision one makes (whether it be abortion, adoption, or even starting a family) there are certain benefits and drawbacks that are bound to be a part of each. In recent years, the benefits and drawbacks of abortion have become the center of a hostile dispute. The pro-life argument centers around the idea that a fetus has the potential for personhood or is already a person and abortion would be destroying its right to life. Whereas the pro-choice argument states that a women’s right to decide what happens to and within her body over powers the rights of a potential person. As an individual who believes that all people have the right to life, as well as that each person has the right to determine what occurs with their body, I struggle siding with either argument. In efforts to satisfy my morality connection to both rights, I believe that abortion within the first 22 weeks of pregnancy should be a legally protected right guaranteed to all females regardless of the circumstances that lead to their pregnancy.
Marquis believes abortion to be extremely immoral. However he mentions that there are exceptions in rare but certain circumstances where abortion is acceptable. We can infer that these instances would include situations that would put the mother or child at serious risk by keeping the fetus. He is frustrated that this idea has received minimal support recently. As a result he wants to influence change in society in hopes of receiving the support and publicity this topic deserves. Marquis’ primary argument stems from the idea of killing in general. He explains it is immoral to kill an adult because it prematurely deprives the human of something they may have valued at the time they were killed, as well as something they may had valued in the future. Although the victim may not realize it at the time of their death, they certainly had a valuable future ahead of them to experience which has been cut short. We are the only ones who can decide what is valuable to them; in this case we value some things more than others, and this concept differs from person to person. For example, in the present I value the life I am given and the opportunity I have to earn my degree at Villanova University while also valuing my future as well knowing that I have a chance to be successful in the future. Although I have not succeeded yet, I still value that opportunity I have and the life I’m capable of achieving through earning a degree. Therefore, he connects this same theory to the life of a fetus. By killing the fetus the result is the same, we are depriving it of its futur...
Of crucial importance is when abortion should be performed. If a human embryo is conscious, its rights should ...
In the debate, “The Philosophy of Abortion” between David Boonin and Peter Kreeft, both arguers are trying to prove something regarding abortion. For example, David Boonin argues that abortion in most cases is morally permissible. David Boonin supports his argument by stating that although the unborn is surely a valuable human being with a right to life, abortion is nonetheless morally permissible. During his argument, Boonin proposed a thought experiment to the audience to support his statement for pro-choice. He suggested to the audience to imagine walking through a park and a doctor knocked you unconscious and after wards hooks up the person to a marrow extraction device, their only option was to stay hooked for nine months into him and
Who and what has a right to life is a question most would not know how to answer or would ignore. The topic of abortion which is the termination of a fetus, and Infanticide that is the killing of a baby within a year of birth, are complicated. Michael Tooley in his essay “Abortion and Infanticide” argues that abortion and infanticide are permissible. His main argument is that infants do not have a right to life because they do not have a sense of self. In his essay he writes “Since it is virtually certain that an infant at such a stage of its development does not possess the concept of a continuing self, and thus does not possess a serious right to life, there is excellent reason to believe that infanticide is morally permissible in most cases where it is otherwise desirable.
Of the four views explored by Hursthouse (1987), I have chosen to analyse and critically examine the potentiality view. The potentiality view is a broad perspective that has elements of both the conservative and the extreme liberal views concerning the moral status of the human foetus. It is guided by the idea that the human foetus is morally unique from the time of conception because it is not like any other known living thing, as it has the potential to become a human being without the actuality of being one. The potentiality view can also cause confusion with the arguments about the consequences of a unique moral status, since it argues both for the conservative and extreme liberal sides, rather than just pointing out a single opinion in regards to abortion and foetal research.
Many arguments in the abortion debate assume that the morality of abortion depends upon the moral status of the foetus. While I regard the moral status of the foetus as important, it is not the central issue that determines the moral justifiability of abortion. The foetus may be awarded a level of moral status, nevertheless, such status does not result in the prescription of a set moral judgement. As with many morally significant issues, there are competing interests and a variety of possible outcomes that need to be considered when making a moral judgement on abortion. While we need to determine the moral status of the foetus in order to establish the type of entity we are dealing with, it does not, however, exist in a moral vacuum. There are other key issues requiring attention, such as the moral status and interests of the pregnant woman who may desire an abortion, and importantly, the likely consequences of aborting or not aborting a particular foetus. Furthermore, I assert that moral status should be awarded as a matter of degree, based upon the capacities of sentience and self-consciousness an entity possesses. In a bid to reach a coherent conclusion on the issue, the moral status of both foetus and woman, along with the likely results of aborting a particular foetus, must be considered together. Given the multiple facets requiring consideration, I assert that utilitarianism (Mill 1863) offers a coherent framework for weighing and comparing the inputs across a variety of situations, which can determine whether it is ever morally justifiable to have an abortion.
A foetus’s potential for developing into a person does not provide a basis for the claim that it has a significant right to life. Even if a potential person has some right to life, that right should not outweigh the right of a woman to obtain an abortion, as I believe the rights of any actual person invariably outweigh those of any potential
My goal in this essay is to show that Tooley’s response to the Potentiality Argument (that is, the argument formulated in the essay question) is not successful and that the fetus ' potential for a valuable life and future does morally justify extending to it a right to life. I begin with a formulation of the Potentiality Argument. Next, I present Tooley’s response to this argument. Finally, I argue that this response fails to establish the claim that killing a person and letting a person die both have an equal moral standpoint.