Abortion is the deliberate and direct killing of a human in the womb, and a human person is an and organism with homosapien DNA in all its cells. “Fetus” is merely term to describe the stage of development in the womb. If you are to agree that “killing a human person without justification” should not be allowed you must, therefore, agree aborting a fetus should not be allowed because, it unjustifiably kills a human person. There are no differences between a one celled human and a full-grown human that justify killing the one celled human. Secondly, there are no sufficient reasons to suggest that even after granting humanhood, abortion can be justified. Scott Klusendorf is a well-known pro life speaker and he coined …show more content…
The best argument of this kind is the called the violinist argument, though up by Judith Thomason. She suggests a scenario where you imagine yourself as person who is abducted, and connected via a life supporting tube, to a famous violinist. The violinist relies on you for life for 9 months and if you unplug the violinist dies. You are like the pregnant woman, and unplugging is supposed to be parallel to aborting. You are supposed to feel like you ought to be able to unplug which seems to force you to think the woman should have the right to abort. Firstly, this only applies to the less than one percent of cases where the woman is raped and thus forced to be pregnant. Secondly it equates unplugging to abortion because both are decisions that allow more freedom for the subject. The answer does not lie in the morality of unplugging because it is a false analogy. The difference is that unplugging is abstaining from care, and abortion is deliberately killing. And a pregnant woman cannot abstain from care. A proper analogy would entail not being able to unplug even if you wanted to. Additionally, you have gun and you can use it to shoot the violinist, thus, freeing yourself. If it’s wrong to shoot the violinist, then it logically follows it is wrong to abort a
Thompson believes abortion in only acceptable in very rare circumstances; such as rape. Thompson states, “I am arguing for the permissibility of abortion in some cases, I am not arguing for the right to secure the death of the unborn child” (335). In a famous scenario of Thompson, she refers to a woman being forced to provide nutrients and support to a famous violinist for nine months as they are connected by a tube. At the end of the nine months, she can go back to her normal life. Thompson refers to this scenario in support of abortion in cases of rape because the women is being forced to care
Mittelberg’s speech was effective in its argument against abortion. He was able to achieve this by filling his speech with emotion and coupling these emotions with logical arguments. His hook about common misconceptions society accepts as truths, and relating it to his topic about abortion was fluid and humorous. Additionally, his use of citing outside sources helped build his argument but did not overpower the audience. By breaking his speech into three myths about abortion, Mittelberg was able to state, and then proceed to refute these myths in a very structured way.
Before Roe v. wade the number of deaths from illegal abortions was around 5000 and in the 50s and 60s the number of illegal abortions ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. These illegal abortions pose major health risks to the life of the woman including damage to the bladder, intestines as well as rupturing of the uterus. The choice to become a mother must be given to the woman most importantly because it’s her body, her health, and she will be taking on a great responsibility. A woman’s choice to choose abortion should not be restricted by anyone; there are multiple reasons why abortion will be the more sensible decision for the female.
Patrick Lee and Robert George assert that abortion is objectively immoral. One of Lee and George’s main reason for coming to this conclusion is that human embryos are living human beings. This essentially validates that abortion is indeed the process of killing a human. Another main point said by the two is a rebuttal to a common argument used in favor of abortion, which states that a potential mother has full parental responsibilities only if she has voluntarily assumed them. The rebuttal to this was that the potential mother does indeed have special responsibilities to raise the child.
However, I do not believe that the burglar thought experiment is an analogy that accurately explains this concept if a mother gets pregnant due to failed contraception. First of all, the burglar in question has ill intent if he plans to break into your house and steal something from you. A fetus has no bad intent and is a victim of circumstance in this situation. A burglar is an adult that has the ability to use reason and understands that there are consequences to his actions of burglary. People that support abortion often cite the fact that abortion is permissible because a fetus has no rational capacities like children and adults do.
In this speech I hope to present a persuasive moral argument that abortion is akin to murder and should be avoided, even if the child is unplanned or unwanted or the women would be in danger by the consequences of abortion. (Transition: Let’s look more closely at the health risks posed by cell phones.) Body I. Abortion is a murder. It is the intentionally killing of a human being and it is also can be considered as a war on the unborn which are obviously defenseless and voiceless. A. Abortion denies the right of the eternal being to have a mortal experience and also learning experience in this world.
This, however, does not mean that she agrees that in all situations the choice to have an abortion wouldn’t be self- centered or callous. To begin, she gives examples for why the right to life of
They talked about seven lies pro-choicers believe but are morally incorrect. For example, pro-abortionist believe abortions are needed to prevent overpopulation. When in reality, America and many other countries are below the replacement rate needed to have a steady population. They provided evidence of doctors that confirm their argument that human life begins at the beginning of conception. This source is most valuable for my essay because it helped me understand the views of pro-life.
Doris Gudino Professor Chounlamountry Political Science 1 27 July 2015 Pro-Choice Anyone? A woman has, undoubtedly, the freedom to procreate, but once a woman chooses to retreat from that freedom, a commotion arises. Abortion is a woman’s choice for many reasons. It’s her body, therefore, no one else can decide for said person.
Mary Anne Warren is a well-known American philosopher who has influenced the argument of the controversial issue, abortion. Today, I will be supporting Warren’s belief and theory on abortion solely being the woman’s choice and will do so by refuting other theories and philosophers including; John T Noonan, Judith Thompson, and Don Marquis. John T. Noonan revolves his argument of abortion around the idea of conception. According to Noonan, abortion is morally wrong because a being comes into existence at the point of conception. Also, being conceived by human parents automatically classifies the fetus as a human as well.
A second reason why abortion is wrong is because it deprives the fetus from his future. When we decide to kill a fetus then we are taking away from him a future like ours. The argument is as follows : (1) it is impermissible to kill humans, who if lived, would have a future like ours, (2) if abortion is not done, the fetus would have future as we do have, (3) so it is wrong to kill the fetus (4) therefore abortion is impermissible. A similar argument was given by Don Marquis in his article “Why Abortion is Immoral”. He stated that what makes killing wrong is neither the effect on the murder, nor the effect on the victim’s relatives or friends, but the effect is on the victim himself.
Therefore, stopping the life of a fetus is unethical and wrong. If a person kills a pregnant women they are charged with two counts of murder. If abortion is not murder then why in the United States would the murderer of a pregnant women be charged with two counts? The same should go in abortion cases. Just because the biological mother decides to terminate the pregnancy what is the difference if a murder takes that decision into his or her own hands?
“Abortion -should it be a right of every woman in the present context- A critical analysis” 1. Introduction I elected to present my dissertation on a topic based on ‘abortion’ since it is a hidden social menace in our society. It is like an iceberg. The tip represents the reported abortions, which everyone sees.
The termination of pregnancy by removing a fetus or embryo from the womb before it can survive on its own is called abortion. Nowadays, abortion is so common that more than forty percent of all women will perform abortion at some time of their reproductive lives. While this numbers are scary, what is more troublesome is that several countries support this dreadful act. Society is now considering this act of murder each day more normal, and position the mother 's rights before the baby´s rights. Killing an adult is no different than killing a fetus, both are genetically unique and were made by God.
In Carol Gilligan 's essay, "Concepts of Self and Morality," a college student answers the question of what morality should be by stating, "The basic idea that I cling to is the sanctity of human life" (171). When a woman decides to have an abortion, she overlooks the sanctity of human life and she forgets her morals. Therefore there should not be a question of choice in the matter of