A woman should have the right to choose if she wants to have an abortion. Your viewpoint does not acknowledge a woman's right to freedom of choice. I agree with your opinion, that the fetus is a human and that it has a right to life and that is why I believe in early abortions. I feel that your viewpoint would cause many problems. One problem is that your viewpoint allows no abortions, that allows no consideration for the mother of the family that would be effected by that child.
Abortion is Moral On the question of abortion being moral, the answer is clearly that terminating a fetus' life under certain circumstances is not only moral, but it is also our responsibility to terminate it if the quality of life is in question for the fetus. A second major reason is that to declare abortion immoral would mean that we would have to consider the factor of how the conception came about. This cannot and should not be done. Quality is a major factor in the question of the morality of abortion. When parents decide to keep or not keep a baby the issue of adoption does not play into this.
My intent is not to make some kind of case for the despising of young pregnant women who seek abortions. I feel a real sense a pity for them, but I cannot circumvent what I believe to be a solid refutation of one of the major arguments for abortion legalization. This essay, remember is not meant to be a complete argument against abortion, but rather attempts only to address the argument used in Cider House Rules. There are many other areas of discussion which can have a great effect on the ethics of abortion. The point at which a fetus becomes a person with rights is one such area.
Objection 1: Someone may object that the extraction of a fetus into an artificial womb is unnatural. If it were unnatural, then it would go against nature. Consequently, we as human beings shouldn’t go against nature, and artificial wombs shouldn’t be used. This objection directly attacks idea that artificial wombs could replicate the natural environment of the uterus. Objection 2: Another objection would involve the lack of maternal refuge.
I agree with Lafollette and shall focus on supporting him by addressing the most practical objections: There is no reliable procedure for identifying competent parents and it is impossible to reasonably enforce parent regulations. I shall address these objections and their reasoning, followed by responses that Lafollette and myself would most likely have, thereby refuting the objections. The first objection to Lafollette’s argument is that “…there may not be, or we may not be able to discover, adequate criteria of ‘a good parent’” (Lafollette 1980, 190). This is a strong and sound objection because who can universally define what constitutes a good parent? Many cultures prefer to raise their children in different ways that others might think is unacceptable.
Supporters believe a fetus has a right to live and wants to live. Abortion goes against the fetus’ right to live and it’s potential to become a member of society. It is the mother’s duty as a parent to provide for the child the best way possible, and that does not involve abortion. However, a fetus does not hold the necessary characteristics to being a person. The first of that is ... ... middle of paper ... ...as right for her to have a child.
On the other hand, some feel that fetuses have no advocates and deserve a right to live, so it is immoral to abandon their rights and kill them. This issue is not only at the center of political debate, but philosophical debate as well. In this paper, I will examine and critique Mary Anne Warren's On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion, where she examines the moral humanity of the fetus and its right to life. Mary Anne Warren describes how abortion should be kept legal without any restrictions on it. She states that the pro-abortion argument should center around the moral status of the baby, not simply on the rights of the mother.
Abortion should not be considered murder if the fetus is not self-sustaining and requires the mother’s body and physical resources to survive. The body of first priority is therefore the mother’s, and it should be her choice as to what she endures both mentally and physically”. This shows that abortion is nothing but a way to end pregnancy before a human life develops. On that note, isn’t it worse to have a female be forced to have a baby that she isn’t ready for and cause neglect/abuse to the baby? If not that, the baby won’t be growing up in a healthy environment.
In A Defense of Abortion (Cahn and Markie), Judith Thomson presents an argument that abortion can be morally permissible even if the fetus is considered to be a person. Her primary reason for presenting an argument of this nature is that the abortion argument at the time had effectively come to a standstill. The typical anti-abortion argument was based on the idea that a fetus is a person and since killing a person is wrong, abortion is wrong. The pro-abortion adopts the opposite view: namely, that a fetus is not a person and is thus not entitled to the rights of people and so killing it couldn’t possibly be wrong. Thomson’s argument is presented in three components.
I do not agree with the pregnancy being terminated because of the sex of the child. I do not see that as being a valid reason. About Abortions: In the UK, the 1... ... middle of paper ... ...s to abortion argue that the rights of the unborn child override those of the mother. I think that the woman should be allowed to make her own choice, as it her body and it is her life that will be affected by the birth of the child. Conclusion: In conclusion I consider the dilemma of abortion is not one that can be overcome quickly.