Abortion In John Irving's Cider House Rules

Both short stories, “Good People” by David Foster Wallace and “Hills Like White Elephants” by Ernest Hemingway, deal with the dilemma of abortion. An American in “Hills Like White Elephants” wanted his girlfriend Jig to have an abortion. Likewise, a boy named Lane and his girlfriend Sheri in “Good People” had an abortion scheduled. Jig and Sheri interacted with their partners differently, and both were distressed, however, due to religious and moral reasons, Sheri did not go through with the abortion while Jig did.

Virtue Theory is one of many different moral theories that exist today. It is based off of Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics which focuses on having an ideal character. The main focus of Virtue Theory is the role of one’s character, which is closely related to its roots in Aristotle. A Virtue Theorist would do things because it is who they themselves are, not because it is good to do them or because they will get something good from doing them.

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 “Good People” by David Foster Wallace, we are introduced to two characters, Lane and Sheri, who met in campus ministries during junior college and who are faced with an unplanned pregnancy. Although they are both Christian and are essentially labeled as anti-abortion activists, they are still faced with such a rigid decision. However, just because Lane does not truly love Sheri and just because they go back and forth between making a final decision on whether or not they want to have an abortion, does not mean they are not good people. Lane is a good person because even though he does not have a love for Sheri anymore, he still genuinely cares about her; his love for her exists but in a different way. Though we do not know a great deal

Abortion is a tremendous issue in our society today. As well as the article “Abortion” by Selzer, I have also read Mortal Lessons, a book he had also written. Selzer is an author who wrote in order to describe “unsparingly the surgeon’s art, opening up the body to view one part at a time.” The article “Abortion” classifies him as a doctor, but the way in which he writes makes him a philosopher as well. Selzer not only writes about the physical aspects of surgery, but also the emotional and psychological sides that agree with it.

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

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:

I am a firm believer that life is a gift from God, and that the creation of life in the womb is created by God when a man and a woman have engage in sexual intercourse. I also believe that there are times when babies are created at an inopportune time for the parents. This doesn’t mean that the life created was a mistake, I just think that there are times when partners may agree that they aren;t ready for the responsibility of raising a child. For example think of the baby that is created as a result of rape or incest, should the mother of the child be forced to give birth to the child? Although the life created is by God and should still be considered a blessing, what type of life would the child have if it’s mother has on desire to care for it, or if she isn’t mentally or finically unprepared to care for the child or herself.

When it comes to ethical issues in the world, there are not many more controversial issues outside of the topic of abortion. Abortion brings in emotion, religion and ethics all at once, which is why it is such a polarizing topic. This leads to having many on each side of the debate, such as Judith Thomson and John Noonan. Thomson makes many valid analogies in support of abortion in comparison to Noonan who just refutes basic arguments for abortion, and it is for this reason that Thomson is more persuasive.

As we all know, Abortions are very well known and controversial in society today. Abortion is the process of removing a living human fetus from the mother's womb with an intention to end the life of that fetus preceding to its natural birth. Many people feel as though abortion is a huge crime; killing a human being, but just a different process. On the other hand, others may feel as though abortions are okay, and it should be the women’s decision on whether the fetus should continue to grow and go about with the deliverance. By any chance, do the parent ever think that the fetus may have feelings or feel pain during the process of an abortion?

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 the article 'A Defense of Abortion' Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that abortion is morally permissible even if the fetus is considered a person. In this paper I will give a fairly detailed description of Thomson main arguments for abortion. In particular I will take a close look at her famous 'violinist' argument. Following will be objections to the argumentative story focused on the reasoning that one person's right to life outweighs another person's right to autonomy. Then appropriate responses to these objections. Concluding the paper I will argue that Thomson's 'violinist' argument supporting the idea of a mother's right to autonomy outweighing a fetus' right to life does not

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.

Judith Jarvis Thomson proposes her argument in her article, A Defense of Abortion. There, she explains to her readers during what circumstances is abortion justifiable. Thomson uses the argument by analogy strategy to explain to her readers her argument. She tries to reach her conclusion by comparing it to similar cases. The point she is trying to make is to tell her readers that abortion is morally permissible only in some cases, like when the mother has been a victim of rape, when contraception has failed or when the pregnancy is of danger to the mother. She explains to her readers that abortion is justifiable only in some cases, not all. Thomson uses the case of a violinist to show her readers that abortion is morally permissible when a woman has been victim of rape. She also uses the people seeds story as an analogy to explain that abortion is morally acceptable when contraception has failed. Thomson also mentions the right to life in her article. She uses the right to life to explain to us that it is morally justifiable for the mother to abort the fetus when the fetus is endangering the mother’s life. In order to help her readers understand the notion of right to life she is trying to propose to us, she does so by using the Henry Fonda example. In my point of view, I find most of Thomson’s analogies irrelevant to the argument she is trying to make. I will explain to my readers why I find Thomson’s analogies irrelevant.

Abortion is the main topic talked about in both The Defense of Abortion and Virtue Theory and Abortion. While the two may have similarities, they are also quite different. While one story talks about how abortion is bad and makes you look at it through different examples of things, the other describes how a righteous person sees it.