Abortion And Abortion Summary

Abortion has been around for quite some time. Laws have been set allowing it and banning it during different periods of time. The procedures that can be done are all very different. There is a medical abortion involving drugs and there are surgical abortion involving a more invasive procedure. There are also different points of view on it. There are those who fully support the termination of a pregnancy and those who are completely against it. There are many factors to consider and very different ideas out there.

An Oklahoma bill is currently making it’s way through the senate right now that could drastically affect the way abortion is by residents. State Senator Joseph Silk, plans to abolish abortion in the state of Oklahoma with his bill titled, SB 1118. SB 1118 would consider the act of abortion to be first degree murder. The bill has recently passed through the health and human services committee, and the first degree murder penalty was added after. Silk states, “Life begins at contraception,” and believes the embryos have every right to be protected as a one-year-old child would be. Unfortunately for Silk, the bill is currently stuck, held by the republic committee, and refusing to let SB 1118 be heard on the senate floor. Senate leadership believe Silk has gone to the extreme, and considers SB 1118’s penalty to be going too far. Silk

The issue of abortion is one of the most sensitive and controversial issues faced by modern societies. This issue leads to topics of whether abortion is right or wrong, if it is the actual killing of a person, and what actually defines the moral status of a fetus. In this paper, I will be arguing against Bonnie Steinbock, who believes that abortions are morally acceptable. So I will be supporting the view that abortions are not morally acceptable.

In her essay “Abortion, Intimacy, and the Duty to Gestate,” Margaret Olivia Little examines whether it should be permissible for the state to force the intimacy of gestation on a woman against her consent. Little concludes that “mandating gestation against a woman’s consent is itself a harm - a liberty harm” (p. 303). She reaches this conclusion after examining the deficiencies in the current methods used to examine and evaluate the issues of abortion. Their focus on the definition of a “person” and the point in time when the fetus becomes a distinct person entitled to the benefits and protections of the law fails to capture “the subtleties and ambivalences that suffuse the issue” (p. 295). Public debate on the right to life and the right

Throughout her article "On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion," Mary Anne Warren breaks down her reasoning as to why abortion, at any stage of pregnancy, should be morally and legally permissible in society. Warren bases her article upon her point of view of the moral community so as to diminish doubts that readers may have on the notion that abortion is morally acceptable. Throughout the course of this essay, I will endeavor to explain Warren's view of the moral community as well as how it influences her beliefs on the matter of abortion. Furthermore, I will attempt to refute some of the statements made throughout this article.

The debate about the legality of abortion involves debating the legal status of the fetus. If the fetus is a person, anti-choice activists argue, then abortion is murder and should be illegal. Even if the fetus is a person, though, abortion may have justified as necessary to women’s body self-govern but that wouldn’t mean that abortion is automatically ethical. Perhaps the state can’t force women to carry pregnancies to term, but it could argue that it is the most ethical choice.

Mary Anne Warren (p.195-196) points out the exceptional circumstances of pregnancy; where one human is entirely biologically reliant on another and where it is impossible for complete personhood rights to not be in conflict between the foetus and the mother. Consider the following case. A mother and an expecting mother both express an intent to kill their child or unborn child respectively. Services are available to take the postnatal children from their mother without affecting her body. Yet to protect the foetus, one would have to imprison the mother until birth, or worse, force a caesarean on her. Warren (193) points out that forced caesareans are not merely a hypothetical

In “A Defense of Abortion” by Judith Jarvis Thompson, Thompson works to argue that even if a human fetus is considered a person, abortion is still often morally permissible. This paper will work to explain Thompson’s positions on the different accounts of the right to life, and to provide an evaluation of them and explain why they are not plausible, specifically regarding three of the analogies on-which she based her entire argument: the violinist, the coat, and the case of Kitty Genovese, as well as to explore a logical counterargument and explain why it’s stance is impermissible.

Unlike other bills of a similar nature which claimed to protect women’s health, HB2 clearly stated that “…the state has a compelling state interest in protecting the lives of unborn children” (Texas Legislature 2013). HB2 is what is known as a TRAP law, or a “Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers” law (Medoff 2012). As Medoff notes, TRAP laws

The State of Massachusetts passed the Reproductive Health Care Facilities Act in 2000, and amended the act in 2007. The original act was created in response to the numerous conflicting public demonstrations between abortion opponents and advocates of abortion rights that frequently occurred outside clinics where abortions were performed. The Act in 2000 stated that within an 18 feet radius of an entrance and driveway of a reproductive health care facility, no one was allowed to approach another person within

In the reading “In Defense of Abortion and Infanticide,” Michael Tooley argued why he thinks abortion as well as infanticide is ok. His main argument was that, “An entity cannot have a right to life unless it is capable of having an interest in its own continued existence.” He appealed to Joel Fienburg’s interest principle. Tooley says that a zygote cannot be spoken of as a subject of interest or have desires, therefore a zygote cannot have a right to life.

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.

It is worth mentioning in the first place that the continuing debate over the abortion problem has always been based on two main opposing views. Nagan (1971) terms these viewpoints as “the fetus oriented view and the female perspective” (p. 288). To his mind, defining the status of the fetus as a human being or only as a potential human being best indicates polarity

One of the first moral issues addressed by both sides of the abortion debate concerns a pregnant woman’s so-called natural “right” to make “reproductive choices.” (“The Rights of Pregnant Women”) Anti-abortion advocacy groups claim that “the only way to actually protect the mother’s rights will be by enforcing laws that secure her child’s right to life,” (“Argument 2”) whereas pro-abortion groups contend that these laws “create a dangerous precedent for wide-ranging government intrusion into the lives of all women.” (“The Rights”) With two fundamentally contrasting viewpoints at odds with each other, it is apparent that one of the core issues concurrent with abortion is a woman’s rights versus the rights of her unborn fetus.

Abortion is defined in several ways all of which stop a pregnancy. There are different ways of abortion, which are spontaneous abortion, surgical abortion, and medical abortion. Abortion has been arguable topic for decades. One can neither believe abortion to be good nor bad. The idea of individuality and human life is not quite the same. Idea of human life has come from conception; simultaneously on the other hand, fertilizer eggs used for in vitro fertilization are also human lives but eggs unable to implant are routinely thrown away. Would you like to call it a murder and if not, then how is abortion a murder? Arizona is known as a state that is very much against abortion. In 2012; Arizona was named Americans United for Life’s “Pro-life All-Star.” Since 1995, center for Arizona policy has supported 30 bills that have been signed into law that promote pro-life.