The subject of abortion is a tough one. Many people have many different views on it. I do my best to always respect other’s views on sensitive subjects, but when it comes to abortion I become easily agitated. Wendell Berry’s essay, Caught in the Middle, did not irritate me. It includes a very well thought out examination of his views on abortion, and why those are his views. I cannot say I completely agree with every aspect of his arguments but I do agree with the conclusion he came too. In the beginning of Berry’s essay, he states “I am especially in disagreement with [political parties] when they invoke the power and authority of government to enforce the moral responsibilities of persons.” I completely agree with this statement. It is …show more content…
I especially respect that he isn’t afraid to say ‘except in certain situations’. Many people are very adamant that they are 100 percent against abortion and they do not stop to consider the detrimental effects it could have on the pregnant women, which frustrates me. The women have been alive for many years and have things to live for, whereas the babies have yet to be born and have no real connections with the world except to their mothers and potentially fathers. Though I disagree with Berry about being opposed to abortion, I am very appreciative that he recognizes there are special cases in which abortion is completely …show more content…
He seems a bit confused at first because he admits that in certain situations he would be willing to help somebody getting an abortion, but he would never willingly aid in murder. I think this is his realization that abortion is not actually murder. He then goes on to say there are four possible solutions to the controversy over abortion. The first is to make it completely illegal with no exceptions. He goes on to say that this would not work because it is choosing the life of an unborn child over the life of the mother and if they were both to die then this law would accomplish no good. The second possible solution is to make laws against it but make it legal in specific situations. The third is to make abortion legal, but say it’s wrong to perform one in specific situations. Berry says neither of these are the right solution because there are millions of different situations that could arise and it would be impossible for the government to decide whether each one made it morally okay for the abortion to be executed. The final possible solution that Berry suggests is allowing abortions without exception. He comes to the conclusion that this is the best choice; “I am going to take the risk, therefore, of saying that there should be no law either for or against abortion. …this one is more personal than public and would be best dealt with by the persons immediately
...ument irrelevant in his argument. I am personally pro- life and do not agree with abortion unless a women was raped and there were extenuating circumstances if the mother’s life was threatened. Marquis FLO argument isn’t valid enough to conduce to his entire theory. Marquis cannot see into the future and determine if a fetus will have a great future. If the pregnancy goes well and the fetus is born, then yes they are entitled to a future, but whether it will be like “ours” is unpredictable making Marquis point of FLO an invalid argument. Abortion is depriving a fetus of a future life in general. If Marquis would have said this instead I would be more willing to agree with his theory. Abortion is morally impermissible because at the end of the day, it is murder. A fetus will grow to be a human with organs and a brain and have some type of future whether good or bad.
“What Numbers of procur’d Abortions! and how many distress’d Mothers have been driven, by the Terror of Punishment and public Shame, to imbrue, contrary to Nature, their own trembling Hands in the Blood of their helpless Offspring! Nature would have induc’d them to nurse it up with a Parent’s Fondness. ’Tis the Law therefore, ’tis the Law itself that is guilty of all these Barbarities and Murders.” Franklin writes this to show that mothers of illegitimate child fear the ridicule and punishments that are handed down from the Government of the colonies and jury. In fact, the mothers are willing to have an abortion to terminate the child in order to skip out on the chastisement. He turns the tables on the jury to make them uncomfortable with bringing down punishments on Miss Baker and other mothers who have children out of wedlock. This type of comment is amazing to me because if something like this were to be said in this day in age, it would be shut down immediately due to the fact that it is not politically
...cknowledging that the State’s interest in the protection of an embryo … increases progressively and dramatically as the organism’s capacity to feel pain, to experience pleasure, to survive, and to react to its surroundings increases day by day.” Justice Stevens also countered Justice White’s interpretation that governmental interest in the fetus starts at conception by “recogniz[ing] that a powerful theological argument can be made for that position, but [that] our jurisdiction is limited to the evaluation of secular state interests.” Justice Stevens’ desire to curb the influence of religious views on the abortion debate within the Court and possibly beyond is evident in his Thornburgh concurrence. Justice Stevens’ concurrence and Justice White’s dissent in Thornburgh perfectly illustrate the liberal and conservative sides of the controversial abortion debate.
To speak plainly, the issue of abortion is a slippery slope of morality. While siding with the Pro-Choice side myself, it felt necessary to examine Warren’s opinion so as to give constructive criticism and potentially help strengthen her argument for the future. Through Warren’s lack of sound consideration for what constitutes a personhood and numerous issues regarding potential personhood, it is clear that the conversation still has a long way to go.
The topic of my paper is abortion. In Judith Jarvis Thomson's paper, “A Defense of Abortion,” she presented a typical anti-abortion argument and tried to prove it false. I believe there is good reason to agree that the argument is sound and Thompson's criticisms of it are false.
Anderson brings up point after point to support his opinion on pro-choice abortion. Anderson writes about how the government should have no say in a woman’s decision to abort even if she is past the first trimester: “Pregnancy and motherhood affect every aspect of a woman’s life - public and private, emotional and physical - and Roe v. Wade confirmed that it was an invasion of privacy for the government to step in and make reproductive decisions on a woman’s behalf” (Anderson, 2015). Anderson explains how he believes a woman who decides to have an abortion does it because it will negatively affect their life in a way that will be changed forever. The article goes on to explain some reasons why women choose to have abortions. To back up his
The following essay will examine the morality of abortion with specific reference to the writings of Don Marquis, Judith Jarvis Thompson, Peter Singer and Mary Anne Warren. I will begin by assessing the strength of the argument provided by Marquis which claims that abortion is impermissible because it deprives a being of a potential “future like ours,” and then go on to consider the writings of Singer, Thomson and Warren to both refute Marquis claims and support my assertion that abortion is morally permissible primarily because of the threat to the freedom and bodily autonomy of women extending the right to life to a foetus in utero would pose.
Abortion is a considered a sensitive topic in society; as a result it is not frequently mentioned or discussed. However; Marquis has decided to voice his opinion on the matter.
Abortion may be one of the most controversial topics in America today. Abortion is defined as “the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus” (cite dictionary). There are really only two sides on people’s opinion on abortion; pro-life which means abortion should be outlawed and pro-choice which means a woman should be able to decide whether she wants to keep her baby. Thousands of protests and riots have begun due to the fact pro-life activists believe abortion should become illegal. Both sides bring valid points to support their decision that could sway any person’s thoughts. The Roe v. Wade law has allowed abortion to be legal in the U.S since 1973 (Chittom & Newton, 2015). The law “gives women total control over first trimester abortions and grants state legislative control over second and third trimester abortions” (Chittom & Newton, 2015). Ever since the law was put in place, millions of people have tried to overturn it and still
...es presented, and disregarded the fetuses right to a valuable life. Warren also briefly discussed the morally permissible options, such as adoption but failed to include how much more beneficiary putting a child up for adoption is rather than aborting the fetus. Marquis article is more convincing even to those who are pro-choice as it is less easy to criticize.
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.”
In the Judith Jarvis Thomson’s paper, “A Defense of Abortion”, the author argues that even though the fetus has a right to life, there are morally permissible reasons to have an abortion. Of course there are impermissible reasons to have an abortion, but she points out her reasoning why an abortion would be morally permissible. She believes that a woman should have control of her body and what is inside of her body. A person and a fetus’ right to life have a strong role in whether an abortion would be okay. Thomson continuously uses the story of a violinist to get the reader to understand her point of view.
In the article 'A Defense of Abortion' Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that abortion is morally permissible even if the fetus is considered a person. In this paper I will give a fairly detailed description of Thomson main arguments for abortion. In particular I will take a close look at her famous 'violinist' argument. Following will be objections to the argumentative story focused on the reasoning that one person's right to life outweighs another person's right to autonomy. Then appropriate responses to these objections. Concluding the paper I will argue that Thomson's 'violinist' argument supporting the idea of a mother's right to autonomy outweighing a fetus' right to life does not make abortion permissible.
It is almost unanimously agreed upon that the right to life is the most important and sacred right possessed by human beings. With this being said, it comes as no surprise that there are few issues that are more contentious than abortion. Some consider the process of abortion as immoral and consisting of the deprivation of one’s right to life. Others, on the opposite end of the spectrum, see abortion as a liberty and a simple exercise of the right to the freedom of choice.
Abortion is defined as a procedure that is done to remove an embryo or fetus from the uterus of its mother in order to prevent its birth (Roth, 2005). Abortion is categorized as a bioethical issue because it relates to the morals of biomedical advances, policies and research. Abortion is a difficult subject that can involve personal morals and beliefs, legality and religious values. The issue is often viewed from either the side of pro-life, which places emphasis on the fetus and its right to life or pro-choice, which emphasizes the rights of the mother to decide the appropriate action (Roth, 2005). This brings the ethical question of should the government have the right to outlaw abortion into debate. The two viewpoints of pro-life and pro-choice explore the two main moral issues concerning abortion (Roth, 2005).