Abortion is the action of deliberately terminating a pregnancy, resulting in the death of the fetus. For years, people around the world have been divided on this issue. Bioethicists have been debating on the morality and permissibility of such act as it raises many questions concerning the parties involved in it. Even though finding clear answers to these questions raised could be difficult and might need hours of reflection, comparing and contrasting the views and principles of philosophers John Finnis and Judith Jarvis Thomson on specific cases might lead to a better understanding of the issue.
Finnis believes that all humans are persons and that every innocent person has the right not to be directly killed. He thinks that the one thing common to all who are regarded as persons is that they are living human individuals (17). For him, refusing this assumption and trying to demonstrate another notion of person would be “arbitrary discrimination” (17). Like Finnis, Thomson chooses to assume that humans are persons from conception even though she might not believe it. She declared herself “inclined to think that we have to agree that the fetus has already become a human person before birth” (40). Also as finnis did, she assumes that distinguishing the moment a fetus becomes a person is “dim” (40). They both discuss the case of rape and involve the presence of a third party in the discussions about abortion. However, Thomson assumes the first two premises of Finnis argument to be true to later make the difference.
Koko 2
Finnis thinks that it is always wrong to kill an innocent person thus the fetus. He believes that a just law and a decent medical ethic forbidding the killing of the unborn cannot admit an exception “to sa...
... middle of paper ...
...t results in killing innocents persons which means that they consider the fetus to be one. On the other hand, they are for it because they do not consider the fetus to be a person thus it does not have the right to life. Knowing whether a fetus is a person or not will always create blurred lines. Maybe the focus should be shifted on the different cases that can emerge. The compromise for this problem might be found between these discussions about personhood.
Works Cited
Eckholm, Erik. “Push for ‘Personhood’ Amendment Represents New Tack in Abortion Fight.” The New York Times. New York Times, 27 Oct. 2011. Web. 03 February 2014.
Finnis, John. “Abortion and Health Care Ethics.” Kuhse and Singer 17-24.
Thomson, Judith Jarvis. “A Defense of Abortion.” Khuse and Singer 40-50
Kuhse, Helga, and Peter Singer, eds. Bioethics an Anthology. Malden: Blackwell, 2006. Print.
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.
Patrick Lee and Robert P. George’s, “The Wrong of Abortion” is a contentious composition that argues the choice of abortion is objectively unethical. Throughout their composition, Lee and George use credibility and reason to appeal the immorality of abortions. The use of these two methods of persuasion are effective and compels the reader to consider the ethical significance. Lee and George construct their argument by disputing different theories that would justify abortions. They challenge the ontological and evaluation theories of the fetus, as well as the unintentional killing theory. This article was obtained through Google, in the form of a PDF file that is associated with Iowa State University.
Caplan, A., & Arp, R. (2014). The deliberately induced abortion of a human pregnancy is not justifiable. Contemporary debates in bioethics (pp. 122). Oxford, West Sussex: Wiley.
In her essay, “A Defense of Abortion,” Judith Jarvis Thompson outlines the most common arguments that people defend, and explains her views regarding each of these. She shares numerous examples and situations that she believes will support her views. One of her most prominent arguments is that of whether or not a fetus has moral standing as a “person.” She highlights the so called “battle” between an innocent life, the fetus, and the bodily rights of the mother. Within this argument, Judith outlines for us several situations which can provide people with a different outlook regarding abortion. Throughout Judith’s essay, she does not truly give a clear stance, but rather allows her readers to choose for themselves.
Abortions occur for all types of reasons, whether it is because the pregnancy was unplanned, rape-induced, or that it holds a life threatening capacity for the woman herself. Pro-lifers believe once one is conceived, he or she are entitled to a right to live. It does not matter whether or not the pro-lifers are able to prove that a fetus consists of personhood. The life of a potential person should not be able to override the right to one’s body. Judith Thomson presents a though experiment where personhood is granted to a fetus, but how that mere fact still fails to override the woman’s right to her body.
Thou shalt not kill; one-tenth of what may arguably be the most famous guidelines of morality in the western culture, and also the main driving force for pro-life advocates. The argument supporting their beliefs typically starts with the premises that a fetus is a person, and to destroy or to kill a person is unethical. Therefore abortion, the premeditated destruction of a human being, is murder, and consequently unethical. I deny the fact that the fetus, what I will refer to as an embryo up to 22 weeks old, has the right to live. The opposing argument is invalid because a fetus, although perhaps a part of human species, is not formally a person. This leaves it simply to be a part of the woman?s body, whose fate lies solely in the hands of the pregnant woman alone, no different from a tumor she might have. By proving this, the abortion debate then becomes an issue of women?s rights, something that is most controversial indeed. Furthermore, it is fair to question the credibility of many people against abortion because of obvious contradictions in the logic of their belief systems. The fact that this debate is relevant in modern society is ludicrous since there is a simple and plausible solution to this problem that could potentially end the debate for good, leaving both sides satisfied.
The standard argument against abortion claims that the fetus is a person and therefore has a right to life. Thomson shows why this standard argument against abortion is a somewhat inadequate account of the morality of abortion.
...e open to all women at any point of pregnancy, and that the woman reserves the right as a fully conscious member of the moral community to choose to carry the child or not. She argues that fetuses are not persons or members of the moral community because they don’t fulfill the five qualities of personhood she has fashioned. Warren’s arguments are valid, mostly sound, and cover just about all aspects of the overall topic. However much she was inconsistent on the topic of infanticide, her overall writing was well done and consistent. Warren rejects emotional appeal in a very Vulcan like manner; devout to reason and logic and in doing so has created a well-written paper based solely on this rational mindset.
Thomson sets out to show that the foetus does not have a right to the mother’s body and that it would be not unjust to perform an abortion when the mother’s life is not threatened.
Over the duration of the last century, abortion in the Western hemisphere has become a largely controversial topic that affects every human being. In the United States, at current rates, one in three women will have had an abortion by the time they reach the age of 45. The questions surrounding the laws are of moral, social, and medical dilemmas that rely upon the most fundamental principles of ethics and philosophy. At the center of the argument is the not so clear cut lines dictating what life is, or is not, and where a fetus finds itself amongst its meaning. In an effort to answer the question, lawmakers are establishing public policies dictating what a woman may or may not do with consideration to her reproductive rights. The drawback, however, is that there is no agreement upon when life begins and at which point one crosses the line from unalienable rights to murder.
Jost, Kenneth, and Kathy Koch. "Abortion Showdowns." CQ Researcher 22 Sept. 2006: 769-92. Web. 12 Apr. 2011.
The permissibility of abortion has been a crucial topic for debates for many years. People have yet to agree upon a stance on whether abortion is morally just. This country is divided into two groups, believers in a woman’s choice to have an abortion and those who stand for the fetus’s right to live. More commonly these stances are labeled as pro-choice and pro-life. The traditional argument for each side is based upon whether a fetus has a right to life. Complications occur because the qualifications of what gives something a right to life is not agreed upon. The pro-choice argument asserts that only people, not fetuses, have a right to life. The pro-life argument claims that fetuses are human beings and therefore they have a right to life. Philosopher, Judith Jarvis Thomson, rejects this traditional reasoning because the right of the mother is not brought into consideration. Thomson prepares two theses to explain her reasoning for being pro-choice; “A right to life does not entail the right to use your body to stay alive” and “In the majority of cases it is not morally required that you carry a fetus to term.”
Thomson starts off her paper by explaining the general premises that a fetus is a person at conception and all persons have the right to life. One of the main premises that Thomson focuses on is the idea that a fetus’ right to life is greater than the mother’s use of her body. Although she believes these premises are arguable, she allows the premises to further her explanation of why abortion could be
How could humans continue to exist on Earth? Is it right for a woman to terminate a pregnancy? Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by removing a fetus before it can survive. It is a sensitive and controversial topic that relates to moral dilemmas. People have negative views, positive views and also moderate views toward this issue. Despite many disagreements, the women are the most disadvantaged because they are the ones having to face the moral dilemmas, mental and physical challenges.
One moral argument is that the fetus is an innocent person and it is wrong to kill an innocent person therefore it is wrong to kill a fetus (Roth, 2005). The opposite argument can also be made. The fetus ...