Abortion Of Abortion

Jonathan Glover, in his article Matters of Life and Death casts dispersions on both pro-abortion and anti-abortion debates citing them as too knee-jerk emotional reactions diminishing the inherent complexity of the other side (1. Glover, CC2006, p. 0110). Glover comprehensively addresses the key points of both sides of the abortion debate and evaluates their inherent virtues, especially for those who hold these opinions, then methodically points out its flaws. Ultimately, Glover comes to the conclusion that though a fetus is a human at the moment of conception, the right to abort lies with the mother and her own self-determination.

However, the question frequently comes about regarding at which point of fetal development can the fetus be given “personhood.” The standard pro-life argument asserts the claim that life is present from the point of conception; a fetus possess similar physical characteristics to that of an infant such as a genetic codes that are necessary and sufficient conditions for being human, making the claims of abortion morally akin to murder. Mary Anne Warren and Judith Jarvis Thomson provide a pro-abortion argument, asserting that abortions do not take

One of the main arguments against the pro-life movement is that the fetuses that are being removed are not humans and therefore do not have basic rights. When human sperm penetrates a human ovum, a zygote is formed. A zygote is undeniably human because it composed of human DNA that is unique from both the mother 's and the father 's individual DNA. From this, it can be concluded that abortion operations affect more than just the mother and her rights, it now includes the rights of the fetus. Also, the human zygote fulfills the scientific definition of an organism. The human embryo is a complex structure of independent elements designed to carry on the activities of life by separately functioning but mutually dependent organs. The human zygote also fulfills the four main categories of biological life: growth, reproduction, reaction to stimuli, and metabolism. Reaction to stimuli

At the moment of conception, each human being is given its own set of forty-six chromosomes and its own unique DNA. At just five weeks of development, the lungs, jaw, nose, and brain, alongside every other essential organ has began to form and the heart has been beating at a steady rate of eighty-five beats per minute. In just a week, bones will begin to form, muscles will be able to contract, and the embryo will contain everything present in an adult human (“Abortion Facts”). An individual, beautiful life has now began, sprouting from the tiniest of seeds.

Speaking of life, much debate occurred over whether or not an embryo should be considered a human. Patrick Lee, and Robert P. George, two of these individuals, Lee, a professor, and George, a politician, have often collaborated on many articles about stem cell research, and have gone on record by agreeing that embryos are in fact human from conception(33-41). The two argue that, from conception, an embryo immediately strives toward purposeful development. They then go into the science behind this claim. For our purposes, we won’t go into the science behind said development, because there is too much information

Those who morally object to using embryonic stem cells to make further advancements in science view embryos as human beings and also believe that the embryo’s full moral rights must be protected. This argument is supported with the assumption that humans exist as embryos, for it is believed as the earliest stage of human existence, and that our moral status is equal throughout all stages of fetal development and life (BOOK). The standard argument for this view is as follows: “it is morally impermissible to kill an innocent human being; a human embryo is an innocent human being; therefore, it is morally impermissible to kill a human embryo” (plato.standford).

The real question regarding all of the varying opinions and controversy, is what is a human embryo, and what is human life? Other questions include the morality of embryonic stem cell research and is bearing children a right given to us by society? Further discussion of these question will entail why in

However, the general population may not agree as to whether the zygote is an organism, i.e. a human being, or just a cell. The argument that the only factors involved in abortion is a woman and her body falls apart considering a zygote has human DNA that is not identical to that of the mother or any other human being. Therefore, the zygote, though dependent on the mother, is an entirely separate entity. The “clump of cells” argument is debunked by the scientific fact that while a clump of cells can perform basic cellular functions, no higher level of organization or coordinated behavior is exhibited. A zygote is not simply a clump of cells because it meets the definition of an organism due to the fact that upon fertilization, a series of developmental milestones is definitively initiated within the zygote that lead up to formation of a body that progresses through the development of the unborn child, infancy, childhood, and adulthood. A clump of cells could not even unconsciously perform such an intricate, synchronized process. In addition, some pro-choice advocates claim that prior to birth, the life growing inside a mother’s womb is not a person. However, this is an opinion and not a scientific fact; therefore, it cannot be cited as evidence to support the argument that abortion is ethical. Others claim that what makes us human is a spiritual quality like a soul and that unborn humans lack

No abortion to avert health risks written by the Medical News today is related to a polish woman whom was denied to abort even though her physician warned her of health risks she could go through. The health risk that the physician told her if she kept going through the pregnancy would be to lose her eye sight. The polish law consisted of allowing abortion only if a woman was raped, is a danger to her life or the fetus will have birth defects. The European court for human rights is considering to rule if Tysiac’s rights were violated even though the Polish laws will not be changed. I will now demonstrate how the philosophers Mary Anne Warren and Rosalind Hursthouse would react to this case.

After laying out his structured argument he takes a broader look at the opposition and what they might say about his view on the subject matter. The critics would say that the human embryo does not count as a human subject or that she does not count as a vulnerable human subject (Napier, 502). After explaining the opposition he then looks at the moral worth of the embryo and gives several situations in which there is possibilities of the embryo having moral values even before birth. He gives an example that an adult is comatose and needs stem cell implants to be able to function again. The adult who needs regenerative therapy and the embryo are in the same position in relation to possessing personhood capacities. Both lack these capacities in morally similar ways. Therefore, if we say the adult has moral status, then so does the embryo (Napier, 505). Another case he illustrates to prove his point is that of women smoking and having miscarriages. Most women when they find out they have had a miscarriage mourn the loss of their baby. Most people would say that women should stop smoking if they become pregnant; not doing so is morally irresponsible (Napier, 505). According to Napier, if the women have to stop smoking because it’s immoral then the embryo is a living being.

“When Does Human Life Begin?” written by Arthur Caplan in 2014, takes an inside look at the question that is centered at the root of the abortion argument. Caplan addresses the scientific foundation of when human life actually begins, why the facts are not publicized, why some embryos cannot become human beings and why scientists are hesitate to correct their mistakes. The article is well written and completes the task of answering the initial question: When does Life begin?

Religion, personal rights, or science normally fuels the debate on abortion. However abortion can be looked at philosophically and debated whether it is moral or immoral. In this paper I will argue that abortion is immoral because it deprives the zygote from any future life.

“Sperm and ova are life forms even if they never meet. The embryo is a different proposition from either sperm or ova. The developing fetus has significant new attributes. It would be difficult to deny the existence of life before birth” (Kastenbaum, p. 295). In other words, from the moment of conception, a fetus is alive and has its own unique human DNA, this make the fetus a person. People should be aware that from the day a woman missed her period the heart of the baby start beatings. Furthermore, many people do not want to see a fetus as a person because they do not want to feel guiltier than how they feel for choosing not to have the baby. I know that we

Abortion is one subject that has raised many controversies in America today with differing views from different groups. Abortion is the intentional termination of a pregnancy after conception, and science has proved it that life begins at conception. A baby comes into existence all at once after the fusion of male and female gametes, even though only as a cell, but the important thing to take cognizance of here is not the weight or the size, but the essence; Marquis is of the view that “a fetus is both human and alive” (TML p. 693). I believe that regardless of the circumstance in pregnancy, a human being is living and breathing in her mother’s womb, therefore does not deserve to die because it’s not convenient for her

“There is a very good argument why abortions should be prohibited, based on the continuous nature of the development of the fetus in the mother’s womb. It is generally agreed that killing an innocent person would be wrong. For example, killing a newborn baby would be infanticide, which is wrong. So, abortion would be permissible only if the fetus is not yet a person. The difference between a person and a nonperson is an all-or-none difference, rather than a difference of degree. So, starting from the newborn baby, and looking back earlier in time, in order for abortion to be permissible, there would need to be a point in the development of the fetus when it goes through a major all-or-none change from not being a person, to being a person, and the abortion would