Benatar's Article About Affliction

This is the first hint suggesting the state justifies the procedure of procreation with a biblical reference, Genesis 30:1, “Give me children, or else I die".

“There is only one way out. We have to fight for the health of and happiness of the unborn child. As a speaker, Sanger’s persuasive pattern includes, describing the problem, offering a solution, as well as, Monroe’s motivated techniques. Although, Monroe’s motivated sequence was developed after Sanger’s speech “The Children’s Era”, she utilized the strategy during the speech, by including this passage “Just try for a moment to picture the possibilities of such and examination”. Within the body Sanger’s ask the audience to consider how they make inquiries about a maid, or a cook. After, the speaker asked the audience to image an unborn child to interviewing the parent, to see if they have good qualifications to be a parent. This passage is where the speaker creates the need of an unborn

When one contemplates the concept of eugenics, few think of modern contraception and abortion when in reality they are one in the same. The American Eugenics Society, founded in 1923, proudly proclaimed that men with incurable “conditions” should be sterilized. However these conditions were often none that could be helped, such as, one’s intelligence, race, and social class (Schweikart and Allen 529-532). The purpose of the society was to create the perfect class of men; elite in all ways. Likewise, Margaret Sanger’s feminist, contraceptive movement was not originally founded with this purpose. It was marketed as a way to control the population and be merciful to those yet to be born, again determined also by race and

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.

"No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother." Quoted by a women’s rights activist Margaret Sanger. Sanger is responsible for the word birth control and fighting to make it legal.

298). This is an important point noted by Little as it exemplifies how women’s personal boundaries are restricted as a result of gestation. All of these points strongly support the fact that Little believes that it isn’t permissible for anyone to force the intimacy of gestation on any woman against her consent, because she too has a right to life, therefore the right to make her own decisions. If a woman believes that she is not fit to be a mother, she cannot financially support a child or that she simply does not want a child, then who is to say she must continue gestation— she cannot be pressured to change her mind.

In the United States alone, over one million babies are aborted, making the counties abortion rate one of the highest among other countries. This means that one out of every four pregnancies end in abortion, one out of three American women will have an abortion by the time they are 45, and half of women seeking to abort a baby have already aborted one in the past (“U.S. Abortion Statistics.”). Since the 1930’s, the population growth in America has been the lowest because of abortion. Two generations of Americans have technically been murdered because the aborted children will not be able to have the families and lives of their own (Steven Ertelt.).

With that, there could be happiness and welcoming homes for the future unborn embryos; she asserts “...prevent cruelty to unborn children,”therefore every child will be brought up in a fortunate and welcomed home(24). This exemplifies pathos because Sanger wants to connect with the mothers on an emotional level, this way her audience will be influenced by her speech. Through her persuasive and stern tone, the future parents take action, because she makes them think about the future generation for a moment. Sanger hopes to provide only welcoming homes for the unborn and stop forcing maternity on women in NYC . On the other hand, Sanger thinks if a woman is not wealthy and adequate enough ; the woman should not be able to have kids. She thinks the government should force

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.

Rather, Rachels opposes both the idea parenthood as well as accusing parents of their misjudgments.(Rachels, 572) This shows the awareness that Rachels has in objectively challenging the current stance that couples must have a child together. Altogether, Rachels has provided a strong paper that initially seems very convincing, but when taking a deeper look, one finds that there are several flaws in his argument.

The next minor claim Willis presents is that the life of an unborn child is less valuable than that of a woman who already has a history and has experienced life. According to Willis, a woman has more worth because she has “feelings, self-consciousness, a history, social ties” (2005, p. 515). By having to carry a baby, all of these important parts of her life are in jeopardy of being harmed (Willis, 2005). The concern Willis expresses for a woman’s life changing

In order to break free from the shackles of predestined breeding, Sanger suggests that women “assert their right to voluntary motherhood.” Through thinking on their own, women can be in command of their own bodies and in turn determine how to live their lives. While this may seem absurd to a modern mind, this was truly innovative and dangerous for Sanger to suggest. She was challenging traditions that dated back hundreds of years. “Even as birth control is the means by

Jeffrey indicates how women who are not ready to have a baby, their first instinct is to have an abortion. Many of these women don’t think of the consequences that can happen to them in the long run. One of the risks they end up getting is breast cancer. Most abortions in today’s society are from teenagers but these girls don’t know once they get older there is a 50% chance they will get cancer at age 45. Sometimes women after having an abortion aren’t able to have kids anymore since they have to scar in the urine. They should really think twice before committing or agreeing to something. This related to my thesis because even if you think everything went okay in an abortion there are future consequences.

In his article defending procreative beneficence, Julian Savulescu argues that “couples…should select the child, of the possible children they could have, who is expected to have the best life, or at least as good a life as the others, based on the relevant, available information” (2001, 413). In this article, I argue that Savulescu’s conclusion introduces complications which challenge its practical application. These complications can be outlined as follows: a) what is best, in terms of non-disease character traits, is subject to change and irrationality; and b) unfettered selection by reproducers may have profound and unknown impacts on human populations. Accordingly, private, unrestrained genetic selection must be banned in the United States, with research permitted under careful oversight.

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.