Abortion and Infanticide - Potentiality Principle

If a woman concedes to voluntary sexual intercourse, she has incurred a responsibility to care for the fetus, since she is responsible for its existence and subsequent dependence on her body for sustenance. Consequently, she has a moral obligation to sustain it until birth, an obligation that ought to be legally enforced by proscribing abortions. (Manninen 41)

From these two notions stems three basic views, or platforms, individuals use as the backbone for their argument when making their case for the right or wrongness of abortion. Conservatives believe under no circumstance is it morally acceptable to perform an abortion. Liberals believe abortions are permissible at any time during pregnancy and for any reason. Lastly, moderates stand behind the notion that abortions are morally permissible in some situations but not all. Over time hundreds of philosophers have attempted to justify their view point with sound theories; three of which, Don Marquis, Michael Tooley and Judith Thomson, seem to have done so successfully.

In 'The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of Double Effect ', Phillipa Foot takes into account what is called the Doctrine of Double Effect (henceforth DDE), which appeals to two effects that an action causes - one intended at and desired, the other foreseen as a consequence of the action but undesired. She uses this doctrine to critically examine its application and thereby assert that "My conclusion is that the distinction between direct and oblique intention (the DDE) plays only a quite subsidiary role in deciding what we say [in these cases], while the distinction between avoiding injury and bringing aid (the DAO) is very important indeed." In this paper, I will begin by first reviewing and commenting on the soundness of arguments in support of DDE in some cases provided by Foot. Then, I 'll show how and why Foot proposes an appeal to DAO or the Doctrine of Acts and Omissions which is explained by her on the basis of negative and positive duty distinction. I will then criticise this approach. Finally, I will analyse three different abortion cases mentioned by Foot from the points of view of DDE and Foot 's proposal of DAO.

Abortion has been a highly debated topic for many years. Until 1973, when abortion was legalized in the U.S., women were obtaining very dangerous abortions that often killed them in the process. Although abortion is legal now, members of society still do not agree on whether it is “right.” There are pros and cons of abortion, which can be examined by the three theoretical perspectives; Structural Functionalism, Conflict Theory, and Postmodern Theory. This essay explains what the three theoretical perspectives are and how they view the social issue of abortion.

There are many factors that are taken into consideration when determining if abortion is morally permissible, or wrong including; sentience of the fetus, the fetuses right to life, the difference between adult human beings and fetuses, the autonomy of the pregnant woman, and the legality of abortion. Don Marquis argues that abortion is always morally wrong, excluding cases in which the woman is threatened by pregnancy, or abortion after rape, because fetuses have a valuable future. Mary Anne Warren contends that late term abortions are morally permissible because birth is the most significant event for a fetus, and a woman’s autonomy should never be suspended.

There are many common pregnancy alternatives, but most often the resulting decision is abortion because it is effortless. Abortion is endings a women’s pregnancy by removing or forcing a fetus or embryo from the mother’s womb before it is able to survive on its own. Not all abortions are purposely done some are spontaneous like when a women that has a miscarriage. Rather abortion is done purposely or naturally it is a worldwide complication as to it being wrong or right. Abortion is an ethical issue that will be analyzed according to a personal worldview and Christian worldview. Ethical thinking will be examined by value-based decisions that address abortion from the perspective of a Christian worldview and comparing it to a personal assumption by addressing ethical dilemma, core beliefs, resolution, evaluation, and comparison.

P1: If a fetus has the potential to a future-like-ours, then abortion is seriously wrong except under certain circumstances

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 this paper I will discuss the relevance of J.J. Thomson’s argument in her article, A Defense of Abortion, to that of pregnancy reduction and if there is any relevance, if there are exceptions or situations where that might change. J.J. Thomson’s argument in A Defense of Abortion is that the one thing a person has rights to is his/her body and the right to control what happens with it. Thomson also states that there is an innate desire and need for self-preservation that we all have that must additionally be considered.

“Abortion is the spontaneous or artificially induced expulsion of an embryo or fetus” (Abortion, 2002). An artificially induced abortion is the type referred to in the legal context. Abortions happen in different situations. The question comes when is it the right or wrong choice. The root question becomes the moment a fetus becomes a person and entitled to rights. The fetus could be a person at conception, during the pregnancy, or at birth. The deciding moment differs from the Pro-life group and Pro-choice group. After critically analyzing four different arguments about the pros and cons of abortion, one will be able to understand the ethical, moral, and

According to Devine the species principle goes in depth by stating that an infant is part of the human species, and that in due course, think, talk, love and have a sense of justice. Devine goes into depth by comparing the life of an adult cat to that of a human being, and he considers an argument which states that, killing an infant human being is worse than killing and adult cat, gives the reasoning that “we accept the potentiality principle” which states that infants have the potential to develop a special set of capacities but adult cats do not. Fetuses belong to an intelligent species, and they have the potential to develop a special set of capacities that give them a serous right to life. Devine states that the latest point as which the

Abortion is one of the most controversial topics of all times. The definition most people associate with abortion is the termination of unwanted pregnancy. In their essay, “The Wrong of Abortion”, Patrick Lee and Robert P. George argue that intentional abortion is unjust and therefore objectively immoral no matter the circumstances. Also, they argue that “the burden of carrying the baby is significantly less than the harm the baby would suffer by being killed; the mother and father have a special responsibility to the child; it follows that intentional abortion (even in few cases where the baby’s death is an unintended but foreseen side effect) is unjust ” (24).

Even if a fetus is defined as a human being because it has a potential life, if the fetus does not yet aspire to live. It is impossible to argue that the fetus values its future yet, so why should it have a right to it?

In our society, there are many ethical dilemmas that we are faced with that are virtually impossible to solve. One of the most difficult and controversial issues that we are faced with is abortion. There are many strong arguments both for and against the right to have an abortion which are so complicated that it becomes impossible to resolve. The complexity of this issue lies in the different aspects of the argument. The essence of a person, rights, and who is entitled to these rights, are a few of the many aspects which are very difficult to define. There are also issues of what circumstances would justify abortion. Because the issue of abortion is virtually impossible to solve, all one can hope