Abortion Depicted In Debbie Gallagher's Shameless

One of the most frequently debated topics in bioethics is the morality of abortion, or the ending of a pregnancy without physically giving birth to an infant. Often times abortions are categorized into either spontaneous, a natural miscarriage; induced or intentional, which is premeditated and for any reason; or therapeutic, which albeit intentional, its sole purpose is to save the mother’s life. It seems however that moral conflicts on issue mainly arise when discussing induced abortions. In general, people universally agree it is morally wrong to kill an innocent person and in some people’s eyes induced abortions are the intentional killings of innocent persons, thus making them immoral. However not all individuals view fetuses as persons and consequentially argue it is not morally wrong to kill them.

Michael Tooley, the author of ‘Abortion and Infanticide’, argues that an organism must possess certain properties to possess a right to life. He states that an organism possess a serious right to life only if it possess the concept of self as a continuing subject of experiences and other mental states, and believes that it itself is a continuing entity (p. 44). Furthermore, he argues that there are certain requirements to meet this claim. To say one only has a right to life if it possesses a concept of self as a continuing subject is a bold statement. If claiming a fetus does not have a right to life because they do not possess a concept of self, then what about an human who is suffering from a disease that makes them

After being married to this man for 16 years. Debbie finally found the courage that she needed to take a stand against this man. She went and got a job at a department store where she became a manager in a sort period of time. When Debbie had finally saved enough money to leave her husband, she packed her stuff and kids with her and has not looked back. Debbie stated that during this time in her life it was hard because her children kept rebelling against her. In return this made it difficult to care for them being a single parent. Debbie learned from this experience that she had the power, strength, and courage to leave her husband the whole time. However, she did not believe in herself that she could do it until one day enough was enough and she realized that she wanted more out of her life.

In Judith A. Thomson’s article, ‘A defense of abortion’ Thomson defends her view that in some cases abortion is morally permissible. She takes this stance even with the premise that fetuses upon the moment of conception are in fact regarded as persons. However one criticism of her argument would be that there is a biological relationship between mother and fetus however there is no biological relationship between you and the violinist. Having this biological relationship therefore entails special responsibility upon the mother however there is no responsibility in the case of the violinist. Thomson argues against those who are opposed to abortion with her violinist thought experiment.

In this paper I will discus and examine Judith Jarvis Thomson’s view upon abortion as stated in her argument “A Defense of Abortion”. I will explain her view on the issue and look deeper into her supporting arguments she included in her essay. I will also explain whether I agree with her statements. I would also discuss whether the person can agree with my statements and reason why having an abortion make you in moral.

The legalization of abortion has become the modern Holocaust of America. The Holocaust in Germany was an effort to terminate the lives of the Jews during the time of 1933 to 1945. The Holocaust is taught in history classes around the world as a tragic killing led by Adolf Hitler. Adolf Hitler justified the killing of Jews by calling them “non-human” while today, the government is calling developing fetuses “non-human”. Consequently, the correlation has risen between the killing of the Jews and the killing of an unborn child inside the mother’s womb. The correlation appears extreme and horrifying to most people without given context. An evangelist, Ray Comfort, witnessed to various strangers on the street beginning with topic of Holocaust. Along with the topic of Holocaust, he leads into the debated topic of abortion and finally shifts into salvation. Through Ray Comfort’s effective use of ethos, pathos, and logos, he is persuasive and compelling in initiating people’s realization of abortion and their own salvation.

To put it simply, an abortion is defined as, the intentional termination of a pregnancy most often preformed before the third trimester (within weeks 1-28). The controversy over abortions usually stems from the difficulty between individuals to agree on a set of conditions that would constitute ones’ decision, to abort as just. This issue is examined by many philosophers, particularly, Judith Thomson and Don Marquis. Both philosopher’s views loosely encompass the complex underlying beliefs of those who stand behind the “pro-life” and “pro-choice” arguments. Tomson and Marquis demonstrate the very distinctively different perspectives one could take on the issue. Don Marquis suggests that fetuses, being persons, possess the right to a “future like ours” and that it would be wrong to intentionally impede on “the life that I would have lived if I had lived out my natural lifespan” except for in “rare circumstances”. While, Tomson asserts that not all abortions are morally wrong, nor do they “violate the victim’s right to life”, and by having one that is in no way indicative that a fetus’s rights have been violated. Despite the fact that both philosophers present valid positions, and outline their key differences, Tomson goes far beyond Marquis’ efforts by illustrating that the way in which we view abortions ought to be redefined in order for one to maintain a clear perspective.

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 this semester, our class has discussed the morality of abortion. We have examined different philosophers’ positions on abortion and debated the pros and cons of each article. For my argument, I defined abortion as the deliberate removal of a fetus from the mother’s womb to result in the death of the fetus. My position on abortion was that it is morally permissible depending on if it’s what the mother wants, the child’s future wellbeing, and the circumstances of the pregnancy. After careful thought and consideration, I have changed some parts of my argument and kept others the same.

In her article, “The Defense of Abortion”, Judith Jarvis Thomson states an analogy involving a violinist. She first states that you are allowed to unplug yourself in the violinist scenario, second abortion after rape is analogous to the violinist scenario, therefore, you should be allowed to unplug yourself and be allowed to abort after rape (Chwang, Abortion slide 12). In this paper, I will argue that abortion is morally acceptable even if the fetus is considered a person. This paper will criticize premise two from the traditional argument against abortion string that killing innocent persons is wrong (Chwang, Abortion slide 9). Following the violinist analogy will be an objection to this analogy and my respons to them. One of the

In the paper titled “A Defense of Abortion” Judith Thomson uses several premises to bring the readers to the conclusion that Abortion is not morally wrong. After reading her paper I have concluded, that abortion is in fact morally wrong, excluding extenuating circumstances. In this paper I will show that abortion is morally wrong by way of the following argument:

Nearly 8 thousand innocent unborn babies are deprived of their right to life each day in the name of a crime, named abortion. Beginning in 1973, the world has accepted this horrific practice, condoned it and now go as far as support it. millions of children have not seen the light of day due to their parent’s decision to slaughter one of their own. However, there still remains to be support of the brutal practice of abortion. These young inhabitants will never so much as enjoy the beauty of the natural light. Abortion is human cruelty that seems to be ignored every second due to the indecency of the parents of slaughtered their own babies every second.

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.

Will Singer expands his argument on a utilitarian idea in order to measure the ethical behavior in people. He believes that the ethical behavior shown towards people should not be less towards animals based on their knowledge and mental capabilities. However, I believe that when it comes to an abortion, it may depend. Singer briefly introduces an example with a disabled infant. He claimed that although the parents asked the doctor to painlessly kill the infant who has gone into an unrecoverable “vegetable” state, the doctor should not do as they ask due to the “sanctity of life.” Since Singer also believes that fetuses do not deserve to be killed since they already possess the right to life, especially at a late term. He also claimed that killing

The problems that Emilia Sanchez faces after her abortion is the loss of her social support system she had with her family. The mother and fathers strong religious values consider abortion as a major sin, therefore Emilia’s family do not want her in their home anymore. Without the grandparents the infant will be denied the extra social security and the roles grandparents can provide can decrease the likelihood of the child growing up to be a well-adjusted adult. The potential problems that could have happened if Emilia carried the pregnancy to term is with her present drug abuse the infant could possibly have complications with physical development such as low birth weight. The strength that is in present in this situation that Emilia wants