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