“Thou shalt not kill” – one of the more seemingly obvious commandments found in the Bible. As humans, our moral intuitions tell us without much difficulty that killing is wrong. When the act of taking a life is framed in such a way, it is difficult to imagine anyone who would disagree – but this presentation is deceptively simple. “Thou shalt not kill”, as helpfully prescriptive as it may be, misses a crucial parameter. Thou shalt not kill – what? Or whom? It is evident that navigating one’s way through the moral implications of killing becomes incredibly difficult when examining more specific cases of taking a life. Abortion, which refers to the act of terminating a pregnancy through artificial means, is particularly guilty of muddying the …show more content…
In consideration of Singer’s argument above, a deontologist might reply by highlighting the wrongness of applying the same reasoning to a small child. One would not treat the termination of this life as equivalent to the termination of that of an animal, even if that animal is capable of the same amounts of rationality, self-awareness, etc. as the child in question – so, there must be some other factor to consider. Don Marquis argues that this factor is the deprivation of the victim’s future. In doing so, he avoids the objections that Singer raised against the personhood case; the fetus is given a right to live purely because it is likely to have a valuable future, but it is irrelevant that this future happens to include human experiences. Furthermore, we see that our hypothetical chicken obviously does not have a future of much value – hence, killing the chicken is much less morally wrong than killing a human fetus. Marquis thus exposes a point that is unaddressed in the consequentialist account; furthermore, he presents us with an important distinction that can be made between the rights to life of different living beings that are, albeit, cognitively
Don Marquis primary argument lays on the fact that a fetus possesses a property, the possession of which in an adult human being is sufficient to make killing an adult human being wrong, makes abortion wrong (Gedge & Waluchow, 2012, p224). This property is the right to a valuable future. Marquis argument defends the position that abortion is morally wrong against pro-choice arguments, including the irrationality of a fetus, the lack of a fetus desire to live, and the fetus not being considered a victim.
In order for the pro-life argument to be valid, it must have both a true premise and true conclusion. It falls short of validity by assuming that a fetus up to 22 weeks old is a person, and has its own rights independent of its host, or what we often refer to as its mother. First we must recognize the subtle, yet extremely important distinction between a human being and a person. It is obvious that a fetus is a member of the human ...
nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Moreover, we have no right to ask for this act of killing for ourselves or for those entrusted to our care; nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action. We are dealing here with a violation of the divine law, an offense against the dignity of the human person, a crime against life, and an attack on humanity.
“Any American born after 1973 is a survivor of legalized abortion” (“Abortion”). This quote struck me because of its frankness. After it was legalized, many women had an option to abort their pregnancy against the Catholic Church’s wishes. Any child that was born after that year could have been aborted. This shows that many of the people that are living today could have been killed simply because the mother did not want them and they were considered to not be living in the womb. Being here today, many people survived the mass murder that is abortion and still continues today. The Church urges every mother to think about the morals and laws that God has sent to us. “You shall not kill” (Exodus 20:13). This includes the fetus in the womb that has been alive since conception. The views of the Church and the views of society fight against each other constantly. Abortion is the killing of a human being and is accepted by modern society despite it being against the teachings of the Church and moral good.
Singer first points out that the different opinions on abortion come from the debate on when a human life actually begins. He formulates the common argument against abortion as follows: it is wrong to kill an innocent human being; a human fetus is an innocent human being; therefore, it is wrong to kill a human fetus. It is because killing a human being is undoubtedly wrong and immoral that the opposition instead attempts to deny the second part of the argument “a human fetus is an innocent human being”. By doing so, critics argue that the fetus does not have the status of a human being. This debate results in focusing on whether, or when, the fetus can be considered a human being, and therefore given the same rights against being killed as another human being. Singer however claims that it is difficult to find a moral dividing line between a fetus and a human being because the development of the human egg to a child is gradual. To prove his point, he describes four commonly proposed moral lines (birth, viability, quickening, and consciousness), which he then denies with strong arguments.
Tooley argues, through the use of examples and refutation of objections, that the right to life is dependent on holding the concept of one’s self as a continuing entity and subject of experiences and other mental states, something which fetuses lack. In Tooley’s view, this makes abortion permissible. While I will not argue that abortion is impermissible, I will argue that the premises Tooley relies on are inconsistent. The argument Tooley presents focuses on what basic moral properties are necessary for a thing to have the right to life. Tooley believes that to specify a certain point in the timeline of development after which it is immoral to destroy a human being, there must exist a morally relevant
“I think life is sacred, whether it’s abortion or the death penalty”- Tim Kaine. One of the most talked about ethical dilemmas is abortion. It seems everyone (and every faith) has a different opinion on the subject. Some people feel that abortion should be legalized, while others think that abortion should not be legalized. Judaism supports “pro choice” (meaning that the mother can make the choice of whether or not to have an abortion) but only in certain conditions. Judaism, unlike religions such as Christianity (which strictly forbids abortion), feels that abortion can be done however only for extenuating circumstances.
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...
Marquis argues that a fetus is equal to an adult human being. His primary argument
There are a lot of debates surrounding the term, “Abortion.” Some believe that abortion is a choice, while others groups like conservatives believe that it is a Sin, and should be illegal. Individuals have their own reasons to why they want to get an abortion, and that should not be limited by legislators. Abortion should be legal because it is the individual right whether to have a baby or not regardless of their situation. The second reason is in the case of rape and incest, the third reason is, whether the individual is capable of caring for the baby.
There are many arguments surrounding the controversial topic of abortion, which for the purpose of this paper is taken to mean the intentional killing of a human fetus. On the one hand, I and many others argue that a fetus has the same right to life as an adult human and therefore abortion is immoral. On the other hand, others argue that this is not the case and that the fetus either doesn’t have the same right to life as an adult or that this right is of secondary importance to the rights of the mother. They therefore believe that abortion is not immoral.
Abortion is one of the most common medical procedures performed in the United States each year. The ninth amendment gave women the legal right to abort since 1789. Abortion has been thought of as a legal form of murder. Some argue that it is not murder, but a mother’s right. This gives women the opportunity to take the easy way out, which is selfish. More than 40% of all women will end a pregnancy by abortion at some time in their reproductive life. Abortion is taking another’s life, a life that you created and is dependent on you. At what point can one consider a life worthless and the next precious.
ccording to Webster’s New World Medical Dictionary, “In medicine, an abortion is the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus. It is the loss of a pregnancy and does not refer to why that pregnancy was lost.” The act of abortion is spontaneously through a miscarriage or through therapeutic or non-therapeutic procedures. This creates the moral complexities and controversies of the mother’s decision to abort at a specific stage of embryonic development. More specifically, the three grounds for justifying the morality of abortion are “self-defense” where the mother’s health and life are at high risk, “mercy killing” where through a prenatal screening the fetus is found to have debilitating diseases or disabilities, or the “general good” which aims to control population growth and reduce the number of disabled children. For the purpose of this paper I would like to evaluate the morality of these points by utilizing the traditional Roman Catholic beliefs.
Abortion “is an issue that raises questions about life and death, about what a person is and when one becomes a person, about the meaning of life, about the rights of women, and about the duties of men”(Velasquez 485). Abortion is an unresolved ethical issue that has been in doubt for many years because one can argue that you are killing an innocent person/fetus but many argue that is not person because they don’t have a conscious or the characteristics that defines a “person”. John Stuart Mill in a way justifies abortion, Mill is known to be openly speak about women’s rights and about human rights. Although, it might be immortal to end someone’s life one might argued that the individual has the right to choose and have the option. But in
I also think that it is not fair to have the baby if it is likely to