Sallie Tisdale's Article: We Do Abortion

For centuries, humankind has been dealing with an issue that has twisted, distorted, and tainted what is believe to be considered a human life. Throughout history, it has been responsible for more deaths than any and all wars combined. This issue has become increasingly controversial, and many are even offended by the use of its name. This issue is what is known as abortion. Now it has been given it a name, but what is it, exactly? Is abortion simply a matter of choice, or an exercising of a woman’s right? Within her article “We Do Abortions Here: A Nurse’s Story,” Sallie Tisdale presents many arguments in an attempt to defend this view, and to justify this vile work. Tisdale writes from the position of a nurse employed at an abortion clinic,

After describing the specifics of the procedure, Tisdale reveals, “I am speaking in a matter-of-fact voice about ‘the tissue’ and ‘the contents’ when the woman suddenly catches my eye and asks, ‘How big is the baby now?’…I gauge, and sometimes lie a little, weaseling around its infantile features until its clinging power slackens” (712). It would be quite impressive to not be absolutely disgusted by this statement. Not only do they encourage abortions, but they deceitfully and mendaciously word things so that women are unaware of how drastic their choice to continue with the procedure is. Although her view is absolutely preposterous, it is not that surprising after continuing to read through the rest of her article.  Tisdale continues a couple paragraphs later by remarking, “We are too busy to chew over ethics” (712). While reading her article, it is not difficult to pick up on Tisdale’s acknowledgment that there is in fact an ethical dilemma within her line of work. But after reading the previous quote, it is evident that she is ignorant to the moral arguments because of the fact that abortion clinics are, like any other business, busy. This is absolutely atrocious. Human lives are now being exterminated for the sake of business. It could be deemed unnecessary to continue further explication of

Like Kaposy, Peter addresses a debate between a few different sources. Seipel introduces us to Charles C. Camosy, a professor of ethics and theology and an author of several articles for the Bioethics journal. Seipel quotes Camosy saying, “… a fetus is not an ‘actualized person’ in the sense that it has ‘the actual capacities for personhood,’ namely, ‘rationality and self awareness in time.’ Nonetheless,… fetuses have moral standing as persons because they are what he calls ‘potential persons.’ What are potential persons?… beings that have the potential to be rational and self-aware” (518). Seipel and Camosy are absolutely right. Because of the fact that a fetus is a “potential person,” it is therefore just as valuable and morally unjustifiable to kill as a comatose individual (who also has the potential to be rational and self-aware, but is not either within their current state). Seipel then introduces us to a view held by Jeff McMahan, a professor of moral philosophy at Oxford University who has produced many works regarding the issue of abortion. McMahan presumes that the right to life is dependent on the “psychological continuity” of the individual. As a rebuttal to this idea, Seipel proposes, “Alzheimer’s victims lack such continuity. Thus, the implication is that just as the death of a fetus is not all that tragic,