Abortions : Abortion Is A Morally Wrong?

One of the most frequently debated topics in bioethics is the morality of abortion, or the ending of a pregnancy without physically giving birth to an infant. Often times abortions are categorized into either spontaneous, a natural miscarriage; induced or intentional, which is premeditated and for any reason; or therapeutic, which albeit intentional, its sole purpose is to save the mother’s life. It seems however that moral conflicts on issue mainly arise when discussing induced abortions. In general, people universally agree it is morally wrong to kill an innocent person and in some people’s eyes induced abortions are the intentional killings of innocent persons, thus making them immoral. However not all individuals view fetuses as persons and consequentially argue it is not morally wrong to kill them.

Abortion is defined as “The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.” (Oxford Dictionary). Nearly three out of ten women in the U.S. have an abortion by the time they are 45-years-old (Planned Parenthood). Abortion is morally permissible because an abortion prevents a woman and the potential child’s suffering. Abortion is moral because it is a fundamental right of competent adults to make their own decisions on the course of their medical treatment, can alleviate further suffering in immoral cases, such as rape and is protected by rule of law.

Thomson brings up the standard anti-abortion argument. Every person has a right to life. A fetus is a person. Which means a fetus has a right to life. Therefore abortion is wrong. Thomson does not understand the jump from a fetus having a right to life to abortion being wrong. She believes that the fetus being a person or not is irrelevant to the argument. And abortion is based more on the rights of the woman, fetus, and who has more of the right of ownership of the woman’s body (Thomson 47-48).

Thomson’s argument, “A Defense on Abortion,” is a piece written to point out the issues in many arguments made against abortion. She points out specific issues in arguments made, for example, about life beginning at conception and if that truly matters as an argument against abortion. Thomson uses multiple analogies when making her points against the arguments made against abortion. These analogies are used to show that the arguments made do not really make sense in saying it is immoral to have an abortion. These analogies do not work in all cases, and sometimes they only work in very atypical cases, but still make a strong argument. There are also objections made to Thomson’s argument, which she then replies to, which makes her argument even stronger. Her replies to these arguments are very strong, saying biology does not always equate responsibility, and that reasonable precaution is an important factor in the morality of abortion. There are some major issues in her responses to these objections.

Thou shalt not kill; one-tenth of what may arguably be the most famous guidelines of morality in the western culture, and also the main driving force for pro-life advocates. The argument supporting their beliefs typically starts with the premises that a fetus is a person, and to destroy or to kill a person is unethical. Therefore abortion, the premeditated destruction of a human being, is murder, and consequently unethical. I deny the fact that the fetus, what I will refer to as an embryo up to 22 weeks old, has the right to live. The opposing argument is invalid because a fetus, although perhaps a part of human species, is not formally a person. This leaves it simply to be a part of the woman?s body, whose fate lies solely in the

Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that there are defenses of abortion and that the right to life is not an absolute right; therefore in some cases abortion is morally permissible (265). In order to argue this, Thomson outlines the relevant steps that help form her argument. One, every person has a right to life. Two, the fetus is considered a person. Three, the fetus therefore has a right to life. Four, the fetus’ right to life is stronger than the mother’s right to bodily integrity. Thus saying, abortion is impermissible. Provided recently by the relevant steps and the thought that all these conditions are intriguing, it helps lay out the main topic for her argument. Thomson’s essay is examining and arguing

Thomson argues in her article “A Defense of Abortion” that most abortions are morally permissible. In this paper I will assess her arguments regarding abortion. Also I will include an example where she would argue abortion would not be permissible. I will offer a counter argument as well as her projected response to the counter argument.

In contrast, Thomson wants to give another angle of vision to the debate on abortion. She believes that opponents of abortion commonly spend their time establishing that the fetus is a person, and hardly any time explaining the step from there to the impermissibility of abortion (40). She thinks that the assumption that killing the fetus inside the mother would not be consider murder if it is to save her life (42). She takes the example of a violinist plugged to you, using you, and the doctor telling you that because of that you would be dead. She considers that unplugging yourself to save your life would not be impermissible or considered murder. In cases of rape she believes that the unborn person whose existence is due to rape have no right to the use of their mother’s bodies (45). Also she takes the example of plant seeds to show that even for failed contraception, the fetus does not have the right to the mother body.

The argument that Thomson is trying to make is that abortions are permissible, but not always. She says that there will be cases in which carrying the child to term requires at least Minimally Decent Samaritanism of the mother and this is a standard we must not fall below (184). What Thomson is trying to say is that mothers should assume responsibility for their child, but they often won’t because they feel like it’s a huge sacrifice. Killing the fetus shouldn’t be an option. Also, killing the fetus is equivalent to killing an innocent person because killing the fetus violates its right to life same as any other individual (180).

Thomson’s argues that abortion is morally permissible. She grants, for the sake of the argument, that it is indeed the case that every fetus is a person and subsequently possesses a right to life. However, she also states that she finds these arguments ultimately insufficient to constitute abortion, in its

I agree completely that the fetus, or the human embryo, is in fact a living being. Moreover, human embryo is the “same” as human beings except, the difference between these two is that the embryo is not a full human person because the fetus is not fully developed yet. Every new life, whether it be animal or human, begins at conception. With this being said, no matter what the circumstances of conception, no matter how far along in the pregnancy, abortion, in my opinion, always ends the life of an individual human being.

Faye Wattleton, the longest reigning president of the largest abortion provider in the world - Planned Parenthood- argued as far back as 1997 that everyone already knows that abortion kills. She proclaims the following in an interview with Ms. Magazine:

The first ethical issue will be right to life and abortion. Abortion remains controversial and a highly debated subject. The ethical debate concerning abortion is the considerations of a woman’s autonomy and the rights of the woman and the unborn child. The parent/ child relationship and assessing the best interests of potential children also provide considerable scope for ethical discussion. (Jones K, Chaloner C 2007). A factor in the ethical future of abortion is the perception of morality, or of actively ending the life of an unborn human being. This process of deductive reasoning explains the most common anti-abortion argument: First, the fetus is an innocent human being. Second, it is morally wrong to kill an innocent human being and lastly, it is morally wrong to kill a fetus. This reasoning can also be applied to support a viewpoint to those who support abortion. First the fetus has no moral status. Secondly, it is not morally wrong to destroy that which has no moral status. Lastly, it is not morally wrong to destroy a fetus.

In the world we live in today, we are faced with many different types of ethical dilemmas. One is being abortion; which is the voluntary termination of a human pregnancy. A person decides to have an abortion for many reasons. Health issues can give persuasion to a young woman to get an abortion if she is at risk of death during labor. Another reason for abortion is because the woman pregnant is not financially stable enough to raise a child, also in cases of rape and unwanted pregnancies.

Is it ethical and moral to have an abortion? The definition of abortion is “deliberate removal or deliberate action to cause the expulsion of a fetus from the womb of a human female, at the request of or through the agency of the mother, so as in fact to result in the death of the fetus” (Merriam-Webster, 2016). What about the morality of un-coerced, human abortion for our purposes abortions are voluntary, deliberate removals of a human fetus (Objections to Warren, 2016).