Critique Of Noonan Argument Essay

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.

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.

In this paper I will discus and examine Judith Jarvis Thomson’s view upon abortion as stated in her argument “A Defense of Abortion”. I will explain her view on the issue and look deeper into her supporting arguments she included in her essay. I will also explain whether I agree with her statements. I would also discuss whether the person can agree with my statements and reason why having an abortion make you in moral.

1. What is Noonan's "Argument from Probabilities?" How does this argument work, and what does he think it implies about the morality or immorality of abortion?

Noonan argues that “if it is wrong to kill innocent human beings and fetuses are innocent human beings, then it is wrong to kill fetuses”

After reading Bonnie Steinbock’s article, I will be arguing against her conclusion that some abortions

Therefore, it explains why it is wrong to kill a person while they were and infant as it is to kill them now. The conclusion of this argument is that because abortion involves killing fetuses and fetuses have FLOs for exactly the same reason infants have FLOs, and then abortion is immoral.

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.

“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

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).

The big ethical debate on the dignity of all life being valuable and meaningful focused on old philosophical acceptance of social contract theory and religious doctrine. The "equal value theory" of human right is established in the contractual agreement with the state and with it grantee laws, protections of the cognitive disabled to ensure their personal claim to justice. The problem with this, then becomes there is not the equal value of protection of the law for nonhuman animals because they have no status of personhood per a contractual law agreement. Singer argues, “that to grant human beings higher moral status than nonhuman animals with what they call “comparable” intellectual ability is arbitrary and unjustified” (pg.5). To abandoned the old order of human moral reasoning, would lead to the human community adopting the nonhuman animal into personhood. The dangerous of taking claim to entitlement of superior of the species in regards to human over nonhuman animals could per Singer “lead to imaginary situations in which aliens are conquering humans, and leading to eventually the humans trying to defend their status of personhood” (pg.

When faced with the choice of life or death, most people would choose to live. In fact, most would not want someone else making that decision for them. They would claim that as a living and independent entity it is solely their choice as to whether they continue to live or not. While this concept may seem fairly straightforward, there seems to be some great debate when it is applied to abortion. For many, they will maintain that the fetus has the right to life no matter the situation. There are some who will argue that abortion is morally permissible in specific circumstances and there are even those that will claim that abortion is always permissible. Why is there such a great divide? A major factor that plays a part in this is whether abortion involves more than one life. Because determining the beginning point of life is such a complex and emotional debate, there will be the same allowance in this paper as there was in Judith Jarvis Thomson’s “A Defense of Abortion”. As she eloquently put it “I propose then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception” (p. 721). This will allow for a look into the moral debate of abortion from a more grounded stage. As discussed early in Thomson’s paper, most of the debate on abortion rests on whether the fetus is alive or not. Whereas the focus should be on the many other aspects of pregnancies that may lead to a mother wanting an abortion.

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.

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.

Anything on this earth that falls under the scientific classification of homo sapiens is a human being. From the time of introduction to this earth to present day, we as a species have advanced socially, physically, cognitively, and technologically. With the introduction of religion and philosophical movements we’ve pondered our existence as human beings and emphasized our superiority over other beings, and other human beings. Humans distinguish themselves from other animals and take pride in their humanity, but when presented with its counterpart, inhumanity, it is treated as an exception to human nature. Animals kill one another for survival, yet people murder one another for reasons other than survival. In fact, people murder each other out of envy and sadism. Moreover, people torture one another in a manner that mimics the torture of animals by humans. Additionally, there’s the enslavement, mass murder, and an abundance of other crimes against “humanity”. However, the antecedent to defining humanity is understanding what it means to be inhuman. The issue is complex, and often brings about questions that prove to be paradoxical in their nature. Defining what it means to be human from one perspective is dangerous, thereby making it extremely pertinent analyze humanity and inhumanity from the cross-cultural perspective. Through the continual analyzation of texts and films centered around other cultures, I have formulated my own understanding