This case has managed for abortion to become a hot topic in America. Throughout her paper, Judith Jarvis Thomson presents an argument that describes why abortion is moral. The purpose of Thomson’s argument is to dictate to the reader that a fetus is a creature that does have rights, however, a fetus does not have the right to a mother’s body; therefore abortion is permissible in a way does not hurt a creature not being born yet, and that a mother has the right to determine what is happening to and as well as within her
). Pro choice activists feel that states have once again have interfered with a woman’s choice to choose. One error made by abortion supporters is that they believe that states are now creating hostile conditions for woman to have abortions. According to “Abortion Rights are Threatened”, states are mandating that woman receive “biased” counseling and that parental involvement requirements become harsher for minors electing to have abortions.
By failing to define the terms ‘fetus’ and ‘standard fetus’, he leaves open for interpretation not only the moral significance of the terms, but also their strength in relation to his argument. Marquis assumes that the fetus has a future that is just as valuable as that of an adult yet fails to grant the fetus the same moral status as an adult. This lack of consistency along with the falsity of his claims weakens his argument and leaves a large piece of the abortion question unanswered. Because many of his premises are false, I altered them to be correct which in turn resulted in an illogical sequence of evidence for Marquis’ original conclusion; rendering his argument invalid. After altering the conclusion to follow the revised premises, it only gave a suitable claim for some abortions, rather than the overwhelming majority of abortions.
Even today, there are many moral and philosophical issues that divide the United States because they create very polarized opinions and beliefs. One such philosophical issue is the moral permissibility of infanticide. Mary Anne Warren, a philosopher, presents her liberal yet controversial views on the issue of infanticide in the postscript of her article, On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion. However, the anti-infanticide arguments pose problems for Warren’s position because they justify the immorality of infanticide through the physical similarity in resemblance of neonates to human beings. These arguments also claim that the destruction of a viable infant is needless because even if the infant’s biological parents reject the infant, there are many other parents who are willing to adopt and nurture that infant.
The Keynote Address: Untying the Moral Knot of Abortion, was given by Caitlin E. Borgmann at the Washington and Lee School of law on November 8, 2014. Borgmann’s main goal of her address was to bring back to attention that abortion should be seen as a woman’s own right in making decisions regarding her own body. She talks about how people have become so focused on the morality of the fetus that they have lost sight of the real reason that abortion should be legal. Borgmann feels that it is the woman’s right to have a choice and freedom over their body and the freedom to choose whether or not to have an abortion. The speaker asks why people question the age and status of the fetus, but do not concern themselves to question the rights of the woman that carries the fetus.
1). Marquis believes that the future-of-value principle applies to fetuses because they have the potential to develop into fully conscious human beings with their own experiences and accomplishments (Marquis, p. 5). Marquis further emphasizes that abortion is “presumptively very seriously wrong” (Marquis, p. 8), however, the killing can be justified in compelling reasons, such as when the mother’s life is at stake due to being pregnant (Tiffany, Lecture, w. 8). Therefore, his argument stands that it is prima facie morally wrong to deprive a being of a future-of-value, and since aborting a fetus deprives a being of a future-of-value; abortion is prima facie morally wrong (Tiffany, Lecture, w. 8). Many people may not have the same view as Marquis when this principle is applied to fetuses; I will argue that Marquis’ future-of-value principle assumes that the value of a fetus is derived only from its potential future and fails to sufficiently consider the autonomy and bodily rights of the pregnant
In this paper, I will review Mary Anne Warren’s stance on the morality of abortion and provide my objection to her view that a fetus is not a human on the basis that a fetus does not contain the characteristics, generated by Warren, to be considered a Homo sapien; therefore, warranting abortion morally acceptable. The basis of my argument against abortion is on the premise that a fetus, by the Law of Nature, is to be protected and preserved since it is considered innocent and a human being, based on the idea that a human being is something bodily and physical, an individual and a being in time (Iglesias). Mary Anne Warren defines abortion as the deliberate action to remove a fetus from a human female’s womb per her request resulting in the death of the fetus (Warren 307). By identifying what is meant by abortion before furthering her argument, Warren clearly identifies the topic of her argument so that there be no confusion.
Introduction In his paper “Why Abortion Is Immoral”, Don Marquis attempts to put forward and defend his argument of why abortion is morally equivalent to the killing of a human. Using the deprivation account of the wrongness of death, he is able to apply the same immorality of killing a human to killing a fetus, even if it is not classified as a human, by claiming that both subjects have the capacity for a future like ours. Yet, Marquis fails in explaining why having a future like ours starts when an embryo becomes a fetus and not earlier in the developmental process, leading to absurd outcomes from his logic that causes his argument to fall apart. In this essay, I posit that the use of the deprivation of account on a fetus leads to logically absurd outcomes, and therefore nullifies Marquis’ the claim that abortion is prima facie wrong.
Mary Anne Warren establishes a belief that a fetus’s right to live is overruled by an expecting mother’s right to an abortion because it is not a technically a true person until it is born. Warren supports her argument by saying that a nearly full-developed fetus is no more significant than a small embryo because “…it is not fully conscious… it cannot reason or communicate message… and has no self-awareness” (Warren, page 499). In contrast, our text states that “…some fetuses develop the capacity to survive outside the womb…” after nearly being two-thirds fully developed; this means that a fetus is ultimately capable of communication and awareness through it’s movements (Munson and Lague, page 469).
Abortion has been a medical procedure for in the United States since as early as the 1880s. Historically it has been a medical procedure that was used when a woman’s life was in danger for medical reasons, rape, or incest. The Landmark case that set a new standard for Abortion in the United States came in 1973 in the state of Texas.
In 1992 the court rejected that a wonman has a right to araition until. It was decid simenitoneouliy uitl a coupenion case. The court raed 7-2 that a right to pricy under the due prdes court of the 14th amerditrt extendend to a womans decision to have an aborion but that this right must be balaned agninst the state interests became storger over the course for a preay.a pregnant single woman (roe) brought a class acttion challlenging the constitutionality of the texas.abortion laws which proscuring procuring or attempting an abortion except on medical abvice for the of saving the mother life a licensed physician who had two state abortion prosecutions aginast him. There was permitted to intervene a childless married couple the wife not
The debate whether abortion is morally permissible or not permissible is commonly discussed between the considerations of the status of a fetus and ones virtue theory. A widely recognized theory of pro-choice advocates can be thought to be that their ethical view is that fetus’s merely are not humans because they lack the right to life since they believe a fetus does not obtain any sort of mental functions or capability of feelings. Although this may be true in some cases it is not in all so explaining the wrongness of killing, between the common debates whether a fetus does or does not obtain human hood, should be illustrated in a way of a virtuous theory. The wrongness of killing is explained by what the person or fetus is deprived of, such as their right to life; not by means of a heart beat or function of one’s body, but by the fact that it takes their ability of potentially growing into a person to have the same human characteristics as we do.
Abortion is a very sensitive issue. Many people are constantly debating whether or not abortion should be allowed or not. Some people think abortion is very bad and that it should not be allowed at all. They think abortion is like committing murder as it is killing the human fetus. Others feel that the parents should have the right to choose and it is not murder until the baby is born.
Abortion is a sensitive topic. There are good reasons on both sides of the argument. Discussing abortion can help us understand the pros and cons of abortion and how it can help or hurt our country. Abortion could possibly benefit our country in multiple ways, financial and in terms of safety. Abortion should be legal.
Abortion is much more than a question of how religious you truly are, but rather how much you value morality and life. From a moral standpoint, there is no explanation to why abortion should be legal and supported. Morality is mostly objective and there is a baseline for cultures all around the world, rape is bad, theft is bad, murder is bad, except when it’s an embryo or baby. But to even talk about that we need to know why abortion is horrible. Abortions normally happen during the first trimester which is conception to 13 weeks old.
