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.
In her defense of abortion, Hursthouse focuses on how biological facts might affect the reasoning of a moral agent on the issue of abortion. She claims that these facts bring us to the realization that abortion is not just another physical process, but a condition that entails strong emotional
The second argument raised by pro... ... middle of paper ... ... protection of human life. In conclusion, the analysis of the arguments presented by pro-choice reveals that they are somehow wrong though logical. Generally, abortion is not an issue that can be left to an individual to make her decision based on fundamental values and beliefs. While it is important to ensure that a woman’s right to privacy and personal choice is guaranteed, the guarantee does not come considering this issue as a personal issue. Since life begins at conception, every human being should be granted the right to life through promoting growth in every stage of development.
I will evaluate and compare the differences and similarities in their arguments. Tooley views abortion as morally permissible. From the beginning he is fully aware that he may be taking the less sympathetic or unpopular viewpoint. He insists that to make an ethical verdict on abortion, “one should be prepared to point to a morally relevant difference between a newborn baby and the earlier stage in the development of a human being” (Tooley 38). Tooley’s argument primarily focuses on “what makes something a person, what gives something a right to life,” (Tooley 38).
I will respond to this objection by looking at a strong argument by Marquis. Finally, I’ll conclude that Warren’s is the stronger position. This argument will follow a utilitarian view of the availability of abortion. To examine the ethics of abortion, it is important to first examine utilitarianism. Utilitarianism generally follows the idea that it is important to do whatever the greatest good for the greatest amount of people is.
With only these exceptions, I believe that we should respect the rights of any living human, unborn or born; they must be allowed to have the right to live and progress. When discussing the topic of abortion, those who take the side of pro-choice often believe that it is uncertain when human life truly begins so technically abortion is not murder since there really is no true child in the womb. They believe this question of when life starts is a religious question which cannot be answered by science. But if the concern is truly based on uncertainty about when human life begins, then who are we to... ... middle of paper ... ... women would not occur because they would take care of it professional is not entirely true, women still die from legal abortions in America. We must not legalize a procedure that kills an innocent life just because it makes it less hazardous.
If you are to respect a developed person’s moral right to life, you must also recognize that person’s rights in its developmental stages. Placing human value upon a fetus at the moment of conception protects the fetus as a person throughout its development from abortion, because to abort a developing person is to deny or remove that person’s future of a life. Universalizing this action means that we are to deny everyone’s future, resulting in a major contradiction. This imagined world therefore cannot exist.
To begin understanding the causes of moral behavior, we must understand what we mean by morality. First, it must be emphasized that the specifics of morality - whether a given instance of behavior is moral - is not in question here. Abortion may or may not be moral; that is a very different question. At issue here is the question of why we choose one behavior over another on grounds of morality, and how it is possible that we can consider behaviors in terms of "right" and "wrong." This brings forth an assumption implicit in morality.
Pro-life advocates argue that the pregnancy must be carried to term regardless. This is based on pro-life notions of natural duty and obligation to take care of one's relatives (Hershenov 129-130). Thus part of the pro-life argument appears to involve regulating human sexual behavior. With these counter-arguments in mind, it is likely that the acorn analogy does not make the abortion issue any less controversial. Works Cited Hershenov, D. B.
Initially this seems to be undesirable, but when that act of free will is to violate the legal freedoms of one or more people then restraining the act is justified. The state must ensure that the rights, freedoms and liberties of individuals and groups are not impeded by the acts of others. The views or beliefs of one group of people, no matter how large or powerful, cannot be permitted to infringe on the rights of even one individual. This concept is the very base of our society. There is an issue today that is testing this concept, and that issue is abortion, The volatility of the topic and the perplexity of the laws and rulings associated with abortion leads to the question: How much should our government be involved in the abortion issue?