Abortion Views On Abortion

The abortion question raises a number of issues that form the core of the abortion debate. Opponents and supporters of abortions have been battling over this particular problem for decades and still cannot come to an agreement. Being one of the most common and most controversial medical procedures, abortion tends to affect people on psychological and sociological levels. But while the discussion of the morality of abortion is an ongoing debate, the social issues surrounding abortion in most cases stay unnoticed. The social aspect of the issue is centered on the abortion policy. The main question of the abortion policy is whether the law should permit abortions and, if so under what circumstances. The other is whether the law should put the life of an unborn child first and legally protect it. The peculiarity of the abortion policy is that its measures are highly dependent on different public opinions.

One of the most controversial topics in politics is abortion. In class, we talked about the different type of abortions there are and the many different opinions that people may have about them. We also discussed the many reasons why a woman may choose to have an abortion. And surprisingly, what I thought I knew about them was completely wrong. Thus since learning about the reasons why one may get an abortion, I have changed my opinion on the topic and I was curious to find out what my mom’s opinion may be because abortions were not something that we had discussed before. Also, I thought it would be interesting to see if our opinions differed dramatically since most of our values come from our parents. Overall, my mother was in support of

The issue of abortion is very complex since it raises many issues. People not only have to consider the legal aspect of abortion, but also its medical, ethical, social, biological, and religious aspects, which are still widely debated. First of all, when considering abortion, it is imperative to make sure the mother is safe, which is why people advocate medical procedures over surgical procedures due to the former having less health risks. The drug mifepristone is highly effective and is commonly used to block the production of the hormone that is responsible for proper fetal development and is usually used up to sixty-three days after the beginning of the last menstrual period. In regards to ethical issues, there are the two extremes, the pro-life supporters and the pro-choice supporters, and the individuals with various moderate views justifying abortion depending on the status of the fetus, the rights of both the woman and the fetus,

This essay will look at Marquis’s “future like ours” argument and challenge the premises and implications of his conclusion. I will not be considering exceptional circumstances, such as rape or major health implications, as Marquis’ focus was on general deliberate abortions. I will argue that the ideas of personhood, future-directed preferences and bodily autonomy establish a great moral difference between killing an adult and killing a foetus. In disproving Marquis’s conclusion and his counter-examples to criticisms, I will draw upon utilitarian and rights-based theories.

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.

Marquis concludes that abortion deprives a fetus of its potential life and ultimately results in the greatest loss one can comprehend: life (1989). It is important to note that there are many arguments regarding what constitutes a person, or when in development a fetus attains personhood; however, in Deb’s case we will consider the 16-week-old fetus in the drama to be a person.

In his piece titled “Why Abortion is Immoral”, author Don Marquis argues against abortion primarily using a “future like ours” approach, which is essentially the idea that killing fetuses is wrong because it deprives them of their future. In this paper, I will evaluate Marquis’s views on abortion, and then I will provide my own argument on why abortion is acceptable in most cases. I will do this by highlighting how Marquis fails to consider the mother’s role in abortion. Finally, I will address concerns regarding the mother’s responsibilities in pregnancy by going over situations in which the mother has no obligation in keeping the child.

This essay will explore the morality of abortion through the use of Don Marquis’ theories, as well as comparing them to Judith Thomson in order to effectively explain and present my argument that the decision of abortion is dependent on the growth of personhood. From this, I will present my belief that abortion is morally incorrect and should not be permitted except in extreme circumstances. I intend to achieve this through supportive arguments as well as counter-arguments provided by these given authors.

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.

The debate about abortion focuses on two issues; 1.) Whether the human fetus has the right to life, and, if so, 2.) Whether the rights of the mother override the rights of the fetus. The two ethicists who present strong arguments for their position, and who I am further going to discuss are that of Don Marquis and Judith Thomson. Marquis' "Future Like Ours" (FLO) theory represents his main argument, whereas, Thomson uses analogies to influence the reader of her point of view. Each argument contains strengths and weaknesses, and the point of this paper is to show you that Marquis presents a more sound argument against abortion than Thomson presents for it. An in depth overview of both arguments will be

In his essay Why Abortion is Immoral Don Marquis attempts to argue that abortion is almost always wrong except for a few special circumstances such as when the life of the mother is being threatened by the pregnancy. In his thesis Marquis asserts that abortion is in the same moral category as killing an innocent adult human being and the ethics of abortion is solvable. The strongest argument that Marquis presents to defend his thesis is the claim that what makes killing wrong is the loss of the victim’s future. In this paper, I will argue that this argument fails because aborting a fetus is not in the same moral category as killing an innocent adult human being.

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.

Abortion is one of the most disputable issues discussed all over the world today. Several decades ago abortion was considered only a social issue, but now situation has changed and it has also a political and ethical issue attached to it as well. Arguments against pro- choice are typically biased; overlook the fact that the legalization of it benefits the health of women, and deny women the right to do what they want with their bodies. Thus, the main aim of this paper is to discuss the pro-choice view on abortion while analyzing the opinions of other authors in this paper.

When faced with the choice of life or death, most people would choose to live. In fact, most would not want someone else making that decision for them. They would claim that as a living and independent entity it is solely their choice as to whether they continue to live or not. While this concept may seem fairly straightforward, there seems to be some great debate when it is applied to abortion. For many, they will maintain that the fetus has the right to life no matter the situation. There are some who will argue that abortion is morally permissible in specific circumstances and there are even those that will claim that abortion is always permissible. Why is there such a great divide? A major factor that plays a part in this is whether abortion involves more than one life. Because determining the beginning point of life is such a complex and emotional debate, there will be the same allowance in this paper as there was in Judith Jarvis Thomson’s “A Defense of Abortion”. As she eloquently put it “I propose then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception” (p. 721). This will allow for a look into the moral debate of abortion from a more grounded stage. As discussed early in Thomson’s paper, most of the debate on abortion rests on whether the fetus is alive or not. Whereas the focus should be on the many other aspects of pregnancies that may lead to a mother wanting an 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.