Adoption: Right Or Wrong?

In disagreement many people say that one person's right to life always outweighs another person's right to autonomy. However Thomson's argument makes a very interesting unwanted pregnancies resulting in permissible abortions. To counteract her claims I'm going to use a hypothetical situation as she did. Let's say a mother gives birth to a set of conjoined twins. The twins grow up having a somewhat troublesome life considering the fact that neither one has the opportunity to achieve autonomy. Once they get older, lets say age 18, twin A obtains the information that twin B's survival depends on the use of twin A's vital organ's. However twin A would survive if twin B was too be separated from him thus granting twin A his right to autonomy. It seems that it is obvious that it not permissible for twin A to kill twin B. The following argument shows a more concrete view of the situation. It is morally impermissible for twin A to kill twin B if he has the right to life and the right to twin A's body. Twin B does have a right to life. Twin B prima facie has

In Thomson’s two arguments about rape and failure of contraceptive she has some points that are in fact true and not much can be questioned. In her first argument about rape, it makes sense to say that if someone were to use your body against your will and you have no say about it and be and you are forced to be stuck without a choice to get up and disconnect yourself even if it does kill the famous violinist is wrong. But when you deprive someone of their life it can’t be seen to be correct in any case. Thomson’s first premise is in fact true and gives her argument against rape logical strength. Both the violinist and the fetus are using the person’s body

Though the thought of terminating a foetus may be immoral to most, it is also unethical to not give a woman the right to abort if they have been sexually assaulted. Although it is quite rare to be impregnated from rape, it is not fair for those who do and are not able to abort, for they would have to carry out their pregnancy, along with their burden in an unstable condition.

Having an abortion may be a huge stress relief for those women who were victims of rape. In these tragic situations the victims should not be obligated to have a child. Conceiving a child that resulted through this horrific circumstance can be a constant reminder to those victims of the trauma they went through. According to the National Center for Biotechnology Information, “among adult women an estimated 32, 101 pregnancies result from rape each year". This is a significantly large number, victims of rape are already in great distress, fear and grief and after the trauma they already experienced they should not have the added pressure to be obligated by society to conceive they do not want to. Rape victims have gone through enough mental trauma and that their psychological health should be valued more than the right to life of the fetus. It is a personal decision the victim should be allowed to make without any legal bindings. As quoted by Dr. David C. Reardon, "how can you deny an abortion to a twelve year old girl who is the victim of incest”?

What is the life of a fetus worth in your eyes? It may seem like a simple answer at first thought, but what if said fetus had a name? Or what if that fetus was your child to be? Famed moral philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson attempted to address these sorts of questions in her landmark essay, “A Defense of Abortion.” However, I believe that Thomson’s argument is misguided. Thomson uses questionable premises to assert questionable conclusions and thus, I believe that her argument is misguided. My argument follows as such:

Thomson’s argument seem to have some minor problem. For example he claims to support abortion, however, he isn’t completely sold to the idea. Thomson states “I do not argue that it is always permissible”, this statement challenges the clearity in Thomson’s Argument because he seems to agree with both sides and this makes his argument unclear. If Thomson really agrees with abortion then, he should accept a mother decision to either keep the baby or abort

She begins her argument with her counterpart’s argument that is commonly used in defense of pro-life. Their premises are that every person has a right to life, and believe a fetus is a person, therefore a fetus has the right to life. So, Abortion goes against the fetus’ rights and therefore is impermissible. Thomson believes her argument would bring greater interest by accepting the premise that a fetus is a person who has the right to life. By doing this Thomson is not defending abortion due to the premise that the fetus is not a person, which is common to most pro-abortion arguments, but by defending rights of a person in general.

The conclusion that Thomson is endorsing is that abortion is sometimes morally impermissible because of the different situations that can involve the mother and how she got impregnated. “It should be remembered that we have only been pretending throughout that the fetus is a human being from the moment of conception” (UA8 Page 459), Thomson’s argument is sound because all of her arguments are made on the premise that a human embryo is a person. She states that in the end of her paper that these arguments would not apply if the abortion was done very early, then it would not be morally impermissible because it would not be the killing of a person. Since all her arguments are made under this premise, we know that they are all sound because the premise is true; that “a very early abortion is surely not the killing of a person” (UA8 Page 459). Thomson has definitely proven her conclusion because she is arguing that abortion can sometimes be morally permissible. The examples she uses really puts the reader in a position where they can feel from a woman’s perspective. The famous Violinist example makes the reader assume that if we were music lovers, the decision we would make whether to save his life or not would be entirely different compared to if we were not. Thomson does a great job in engaging the reader because when it

We would all recognize, whether we are pro-life or pro-choice, that the freedom to have control over our mental and physical well-being is one of our most basic and important rights. If this was the only right to consider, then one could easily justify abortion, as Judith Jarvis Thomson does in A Defense of Abortion (1971). Thomson begins by allowing, for the sake of argument, that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception and so has the same rights as any of us. However, she holds up the right to have control over oneself as the greatest right of all. Thus, even though abortion kills an innocent person, it is not wrong. This reasoning seems flawed from the beginning because Thomson recognizes only the woman's right to control over her body, not the fetus'. However, even if we assume this to be true, her argument is still flawed. The freedom of control over one's body is important, but it is not the only right that must be weighed. More important is the right to life of the fetus, if it is a person. In denying a person his or her right to life, all other rights are rendered meaningless. For this reason, our society has deemed murder the greatest crime, to be punished with the harshest penalties. Therefore, if one right must be violated in order to preserve the other, the right to life must be

If she becomes pregnant, she should not be forced to have the child of her rapist. This would further harm her psychological health if she was forced to have that child. A woman needs to have this option especially if a young teenager or teenager is raped and becomes pregnant. Those girls should not have the burden to go through that painful process. Many women want to have an abortion “because they want to be mothers to the children they already have” (Berer 2000, 581). If the family is not in the financial state to support another child, then the mother should be able to decide if she wants to keep the child. This is often seen in Third-World countries; because of the issue of sexual assaults and financial instability, many countries around the world have begun to liberalize abortion laws.

Have you ever changed your mind about a life altering decision? This is something many young couples and mothers are facing after the adoption of their children. So, what if they change their minds by law what are their options? This topic is possibly the worst fear that adoptive parents can face. There is no law nationally that pertains to giving back parental rights to a mother, or couple after giving up them up for adoption, instead it is decided on a state law to state law basis. When adoption is decided it is key for the mother to be giving up her parental rights voluntarily. In many states there is a waiting period for a mother to change her mind, and regain the parental rights. For example, according to Indiana Code 31-19-2-10 the mother has five days to file a petition after the adoption has been filed. When a mother gives up their child for adoption they are warned through rigorous amounts of paperwork that they only have a certain amount of time to retain the child. An issue that is often brought up during this topic is the disruption it could have on a small child’s wellbeing if the court were to rule in the favor of the birth parent. In most cases the ruling is in favor of the adoptive parents due to the best interests of the child. An example of this is in the case Bidwell V. McSorely “where the care and custody of a child were concerned, the paramount issue was the best interests of the child.” Bidwell V. McSorely. 194 Va. 135, 72 S.E.2d 245 (1952) The stable

If you are the stepparent for a child due to new marriage, there is a possibility that you’ll have the opportunity to officially adopt them. This can come up for a variety of circumstances, such as their biological parent not being around, or their biological parent deciding to give you permission to adopt their child. These are a few things to consider when adopting a stepchild.

A recent Justice Department report concluded that pregnancies which resulted from rape was 1 to 2 per 1000. This translates into an overall total per year of 170 to 340 in the entire United States. I realize there are many emotional consequences when a woman is raped but adoption remains open as an alternative to abortion. Secondly, there are a number of different reasons why a woman may consider or want an abortion due to medical issues. It may be that the pregnancy is endangering her life or that the fetus has abnormalities which can result in death or living a complicated life. In the case of the woman whose life may be endangered, this would be the ONLY time I would consider abortion to be an alternative. This would be considered a therapeutic medical abortion and if it was a given fact that the woman would die, then I feel an abortion would be indicated. In the case of the fetus having abnormalities, it is my opinion that the woman should carry the fetus to term. There are so many medical advancements in today’s world that there could be a chance that the infant could live a close to normal life. Additionally, adoption is still an option in this case as well. According to AGI, there are waiting lists for people wanting to adopt infants of all races, disabled children and children with Down’s Syndrome.

Do you know anybody who has an adopted daughter or son, or maybe somebody who has been adopted? When you're getting adopted that means you have a new family who will take care of you. When you are getting adopted it might be terrifying because you usually would have to go to court. When you are going to court people usually want to think that you did something really bad. Well, that's not the case. When you tell you them that you are getting adopted the people would actually might be so happy and blessed to be here.

In the article “Should Abortion be Legal in Cases of Rape” it mentioned, “Why should the woman have to suffer twice? She was already raped, and now you're telling her she should have to be stuck with an unwanted child?” This problem is not ok! Women that get raped and become pregnant should not have to keep the child if they are not capable of taking care of the child. Some women get raped as young as 12. At 12 or even 13 girls will not be ready to take on the full responsibility for a