Ben Shapiro Destroys The Abortion Argument Analysis

Every fetus has a unique genetic code and begins to exist at the moment of their conception (“Student Action” 1). Abortion goes against natural law, and has left

The issue of abortion has always been a controversial one for citizens of the United States. Abortion is the practice of terminating a pregnancy after the embryo has been planted in the uterus (Abortion). An individual’s stance on this controversial issue categorizes them into one of two very different groups. An individual who feels that a woman should not have an abortion- due to moral or religious views- is said to be “pro-life”. Coincidently, those who feel that a woman should have the right to choose abortion are said to be “pro-choice”. “Pro-life” supporters point to the practice of abortion as an immoral one. Supporters state abortion is immoral because it takes away the rights of the unborn fetus, since activists consider human

One of the first moral issues addressed by both sides of the abortion debate concerns a pregnant woman’s so-called natural “right” to make “reproductive choices.” (“The Rights of Pregnant Women”) Anti-abortion advocacy groups claim that “the only way to actually protect the mother’s rights will be by enforcing laws that secure her child’s right to life,” (“Argument 2”) whereas pro-abortion groups contend that these laws “create a dangerous precedent for wide-ranging government intrusion into the lives of all women.” (“The Rights”) With two fundamentally contrasting viewpoints at odds with each other, it is apparent that one of the core issues concurrent with abortion is a woman’s rights versus the rights of her unborn fetus.

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.

Bauer writes about some of those in our society who have an indifferent attitude about the relation between abortion and those with

Gina Kolata’s article, Ethics Questions Arise as Genetic Testing of Embryos Increases (2014), explains that as the increase of the testing of embryos for parents to choose whether or not to have children has also brought its ethical questions in the light. Kolata uses the Kalinskys case, a family in the article, and how their neurological disease, Gerstmann-Straussler-Schinker (GSS), has raised questions for ethicists who have looked into the case. Kolata’s purpose in writing this article is to inform the audience on the growing topic of embryo testing and also the ethical question that also accompany in order to have the audience to develop a personal view on the issue. Given how the author explains the technical terms used within the article, Kolata is writing to an audience that is not fully aware of genetic testing.

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.

Science can work only in the testable world and not say what rights humans should be given. People in the medical field always talk about how the baby, while still in the mother’s womb is considered a potential life. Some doctors call it “potential” to make it seem that it not yet a human life, and not a unique person. We tell ourselves this so that we do not have to live with the guilt of murdering another human being. Many people talk about the rights of the women, but what about the right of a child to a full life. Is Personhood is determined by man’s ability to bestow it, or are we separating humanity from the person? Many studies have estimated since the legalization of abortion in Roe vs. Wade case of 1973, that over fifty-five million babies have been killed.

Using a new and intriguing approach, Don Marquis refutes many of pro-choice claims, including the likes of Thomson and Warren, by not arguing whether a fetus is a person or if it has moral rights, but rather justifying the fact that the unborn child has a future and it would be immoral of us to deprive the child of it. Marquis makes it very clear to the readers that he in no way shape or form is for abortion, and is only okay with it under certain circumstances. Subsequent to distinctly stating his position, he explains beliefs that both pro-lifers and pro-choicers differ on which are whether a fetus is a person from the moment it is conceived and whether it obtaining more human characteristics has an effect on the decision. After carefully dissecting both sides argument logically he concludes that one side is way too broad with their statements and the other is just way too vague to make a final decision, so he looks into another aspect overall, whether the action of aborting is considered murder if at all.

All in all, The New York Times editors purpose of this article is to persuade the readers to help make abortion legal. They use emotional connection with the audience, a sophisticated word choice, and logic. Ultimately, the writers have proven that abortion is a woman’s own choice, not the

When they are brought together to form a unique DNA with 46 chromosomes, human life begins (Zugibe, 2004). After the chromosomes are brought together, there is no turning back. The genetic code for a human life has been created, and every component that makes up a human life is present from that point on. A sperm and an egg cannot develop or continue to live apart from each other; when they are united, they are one being and can only continue to develop (Gargaro, 2002). Each woman also has this biological composition of 46 chromosomes, which shows that both an unborn child and a mother are human. If we are to give concern to the human life of a woman, then we must do the same for an unborn child. Banning abortion is not a way of forgetting about the significance of the woman’s life; instead, banning abortion is defending the significance of a new life not yet able to defend itself.

However, the pro-choice or the activists for abortions, argue that if a family is in a state of financial trouble, then abortion should be a practical option. Otherwise, the child would be born into a life of suffering, and inadequate living conditions. The pro-choice believers, bases their beliefs, upon the fact that having an abortion is the inalienable right of women. They believe that by outlawing abortions, women aren’t allowed to practice their freedom of privacy. In a way, women are being denied their constitutional rights. Many pro-choice activists also state that abortion is justifiable, because at the time of fertilization the ensuing embryo is not yet a human being. It is not a human being, but a potential one. Therefore, its death does not constitute a murder. Pro-choice activists’

The debate over abortion comes down to one essential issue — the moral status of the unborn

“On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion”, an essay written by Mary Anne Warren, defend abortion in any stage of a woman’s pregnancy (pg 468). Warren argues that the potential to become a human being is not the same as being human and deserving the same right to life (pg. 468-472). This essay asserts that in order to be human, one must possess five particular traits (pg. 470). These trait are consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, the ability to communicate, and awareness of oneself (pg. 470). Warren claims that since a fetus has not yet acquired all of the traits, then that fetus is not human and therefore does not have the right to life (pg. 470).

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.