Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Us abortion ethical dilemma
Us abortion ethical dilemma
Implications of abortion
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Us abortion ethical dilemma
I will argue that abortions should be both ethically permissible and impermissible for many reason. I truly believe that women should have the right to choose freely about whether or not to have an abortion at their own free will. The word abortion, is a very difficult, painful and a complex topic to speak upon. Many get offended by the mention of the word, but I do believe that every woman should be given that right to choose without being judged and ridiculed by others.
Abortion in the United States has created a public controversy and can be defined in many different ways by many different people. Some define abortion as “the act of giving untimely birth to offspring, premature delivery, miscarriage; the procuring of premature delivery
…show more content…
Women should not be denied these privilege by the government. “the 24-week upper limit was set in 1990 because it was the point at which the fetus was considered viable.” I agree with the above statement that abortion should only take place within 24 weeks or less and only permissible having an abortion under certain circumstances providing the pregnancy is over 24 weeks. Thus, I have seen women who were over 24 weeks pregnant but, had to terminate their pregnancy due to abnormalities affecting the fetus and was forced to have an …show more content…
The criteria of personhood represent what a person should satisfy to be considered human. Warrens also argues that the unborn are not a person and they do not fulfill the qualifications of personhood based on the 5 criteria. And a fetus, therefore, does not have full moral rights. She believes that a fetus does not have personhood bases on the criteria’s such as consciousness, self motivated activity, communication, self awareness and sentience.
On the other hand, this view abortion as acceptable and morally right. She also believes that “no being which fails to meet all 5 conditions can possibly be a person, although it may be the case that a being could meet only some of the 5 conditions and still be a
“I intend to judge things for myself; to judge wrongly, I think, is more honorable than not to judge at all.” What author Henry James meant by this was that it is better to make up one’s mind and have an opinion than to remain complacent, such as the case of Mary Anne Warren. Warren’s arguments for abortion’s possible permissibility are lacking in substance. The aim of my paper is to discuss Warren’s insufficient criteria for personhood and address the problem with her concept of potential personhood. “I argue that it is personhood, and not genetic humanity, which is the fundamental basis for membership in the moral community” (Warren 166).
”[23]Furthermore, they turned to the required qualifications of being defined as a “person.” Clearly, this can refuse personhood to someone unable to commit a crime, for instance, a child who has not yet arrived at the door of reason. Fr. Clifford Stevens recognizes this denial as a threat to the dignity of the human person and draws from the words of President Lincoln’s rebuttal of Dred Scott to point out that the purposes for abortion are very similar to the motives behind slavery.
As defined by the Merriam- Webster dictionary, abortion is “the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by resulting in or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus as a spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during
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.
George, the authors discuss about how abortion is morally wrong. According to the authors “human embryos and fetuses are complete (though immature) human beings”. Then they address counter arguments that human embryos are not the same a person because they are not conscious as a person is. The authors respond that human embryos have the “natural capacities” although less developed to reason, therefore according to the authors it makes no sense to say at which point an embryo becomes a person. And the authors conclude that the burden to carry out a pregnancy is less than “killing” the fetus. I also think that is not right to try to label an embryo as a human organism or not a person, it is a human person and it has a right to live. But you cannot force women to carry out a pregnancy they do not want, and no one should have a right to claim over their
Mary Anne Warren’s “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion” describes her justification that abortion is not a fundamentally wrong action for a mother to undertake. By forming a distinction between being genetically human and being a fully developed “person” and member of the “moral community” that encompasses humanity, Warren argues that it must be proven that fetuses are human beings in the morally relevant sense in order for their termination to be considered morally wrong. Warren’s rationale of defining moral personhood as showcasing a combination of five qualities such as “consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, capacity of communication, and self-awareness” forms the basis of her argument that a fetus displays none of these elements that would justify its classification as a person and member of the morally relevant community (Timmons 386).
How would you feel if someone decided that you should never get a chance at life? That
abortion’, whether or not she is articulate about it, let alone whether she has a great
... one is right or wrong, this is all a choice of the mother-to-be and so far anyone cannot tell them otherwise. As a viewpoint, abortions should only legal in certain cases.
There are many limitations valued when it comes to the right of abortion. The news media still outlines the pros and cons of anti-abortion rights in certain-states-to soon, the entire country. My perspectives on the issue of abortion have been entitled from it to never be banned among citizen’s rights. The reproduction of pregnancy has been emphasized heavily on a mother’s decision to abort their child, but the father of the child plays an active role since he considers to that particular title. Through this current issue, majority of the people against abortion do not seem to have an open mind to how much it primarily affects the decision of the mother amongst her own views of considering abortion.
In my Opinion, abortion violates a person’s right to life. No one have right to play with another life. If a woman chooses to have sex, she is doing in her own
middle of paper ... ... 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. Although she was inconsistent on the topic of infanticide, her overall writing was well done and consistent.
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.
Article 3, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, states “everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of a person” (Goodhart, 379). This article creates cultural discrepancies that are rooted in interpreting undefined and ambiguous language. For example, there are cultural disputes concerning the definition of a “person”. In many monotheistic cultures, abortion is considered a crime. Advocates of this opinion support that a fetus is a human being from conception.
Abortion is an extremely controversial issue and one that is continually on the forefront of debates. Those who oppose the idea (Pro-lifers), thinks it is an act of woman playing “God” who live from who dies. Yet, whether an unborn baby constitutes a normal person is questionable; a pregnant woman, on the other hand, has the undeniable right to choose whether she wants to have a child or not. Therefore, the decision to have an abortion is the personal choice and responsibility of the woman, because prohibiting abortion impedes freedom of choice and endangers the physical and mental health of women.