Abortion Immoral Summary

Summarily he excludes an argument that involves the wrongness of the ‘discontinuation’ of a life. He rationalises this by giving the understanding that a fetus cannot be taken under this argument as it is required for a being to have a past and experiences to be discontinued. A fetus on the other hand is not even self aware and has had no previous ‘experience’ as such to speak of, hereby the argument dose not apply in the case of abortion.

Abortion’s legalization through Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade, has allowed for one in three pregnancies to end in abortion. This means that 1.5 million abortions are performed in the United States each year (Flanders 3). It ranks among the most complex and controversial issues, arousing heated legal, political, and ethical debates. The modern debate over abortion is a conflict of competing moral ideas and of fundamental human rights: to life, to privacy, to control over one's own body. Trying to come to a compromise has proven that it one cannot please all of the people on each side of the debate.

She then reconstructs the initial argument to state that it is morally impermissible to abort a fetus if it has the right to life and has the right to the mother's body. The fetus has the right to life but only has the right to a mother's body if the mother voluntarily gives that right to the fetus. Therefore it is only in the case of voluntary pregnancy is abortion impermissible.

Marquis argument is superior to others as he avoids casuistry terms such as “human life,” or “human being” and rests on the ethics of killing, which also apply to the fetus (Gedge & Waluchow, 2012, p224). Killing a fetus denies it the right to a valuable life just as adult human beings have. This deems abortion morally wrong.

Abortion is an issue that can go both ways and a topic that is very controversial. Is a fetus a human? Does its life matter? Or it wasn’t supposed to happen to me or I was raped. Many people can think of abortion as a good and bad thing, it just depends on what the person’s intuition about abortion is. I decided to go with the topic over abortion because I feel it is a broad topic and can go two ways as in being defensive or immortal. During this topic over abortion I will be including two articles, “A Defense of Abortion” and “Why Abortion Is Immoral”. These articles will explain the difference in how they think abortion can be taken. For instance, the first article will talk about why Judith argues why abortion is not too bad to be allowed

Abortion really today has been a very controversial issue in today’s society. An interesting claim within it is that abortion can be done safely through the use of medical abortion and although medical abortions can be safe and trustworthy as experts might say, there still are risks that women will have to face and eventually take after abortion. Major types of risks can be pelvic infections, blood clots in the uterus or maybe a torn cervix. These are just few out of many health problems caused from abortion.

Marquis approaches his argument by considering those already put forth by anti-abortionist and pro-choice alike. He points out that both points of view focus on the status of the fetus; in particular they seek to establish whether or not a fetus is a person. He reasons that when paralleled, these arguments produce a sort of “standoff” that ultimately become more complicated and trivial (556). Looking for biological and/or physiological features to determine when a being is is a true “person” is morally irrelevant, and thus cannot

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.

In the article, “Why Abortion Is Immoral”, Don Marquis begins his discussion by arguing that standard arguments or standard explanations for and against abortion are rather similar and fairly unsophisticated. He states that the debate has become “intractable.” In the sense that the two sides of the issue have become a dug-in and no one is willing to listen to the other side at this point meaning that it is an entrenched opinion. He argues that we need a fresh start to the issue a better way to think about wrongful killing, in the philosophical literature is something debated that whether wrongful killing such as murder is bad because of the effect on the murderer or the effect on the society or the effect on the victim.

In “Why Abortion is Immoral,” Don Marquis argues that abortion is immoral because it denies the victim, which is the fetus or embryo, of their right to a future-like-ours. He argues that killing is prima facie wrong, and that this logic can be applied to a fetus. In this paper, I will address the ambiguity within the future-like-ours theory, which I will refer to as the FLO theory, and argue that the fetus’ right to a future of value does not override and should not be prioritized over the right to a future of value for the fetus’ host, which is the mother.

He gives some evidence such as the fetus didn’t endanger his Mather’s life, but we all know that the fetus, it could be endangering the mother’s life for the same reason. For example, if the mother's pregnancy is ectopic, so in this cause the fetus will endanger the mother's life. Lauren is a legislative Associate for Texas right to life and a graduate of Ave Maria University improved that “in life-threatening ectopic pregnancies that require removal of a Fallopian tube” (1). In the case there is no choice we have to save the mother’s life or we will lose both of them. Another reason is if the mother had been Sexual assault, in this cause the mother’s has right to abortion because the baby will remind the mother about what happen with her in the past, so the mother will get psychological

In George Collard’s article “8 reasons I’m against abortion” there is a strong sense of bias in his writing. This is shown through his personal feelings towards the topic, never once mentioning anything that could be positive about this topic. There is a continually growing issue with this topic and has two different opinions and the author is only focusing on the negative and trying to persuade his audience by the way he writes. Collard’s target audience is more focused on young women around the age 18-25 of young adults that are more worried about this issue that Collard has brought to the reader's attention.

Thomson continues to dissect her scenarios that promote her support of abortion. She ends this essay after explaining that although she supports abortion rights, she does not think that all cases are suitable for abortion.

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.

Abortion is the ending of pregnancy before birth and is morally wrong. An abortion results in the death of an embryo or a fetus. Abortion destroys the lives of helpless, innocent children and is illegal in many countries. By aborting these unborn infants, humans are hurting themselves; they are not allowing themselves to meet these new identities and unique personalities. Abortion is very simply wrong. Everyone is raised knowing the difference between right and wrong. Murder is wrong, so why is not abortion? People argue that it is not murder if the child is unborn. Abortion is murder since the fetus being destroyed is living, breathing and moving. Why is it that if an infant is destroyed a month before the birth, there is no problem,