Abortion in our country is supported by many and refuted by many for various reasons. These reasons may include religious, ethnic, political, and personal reasons. Although people today have their own opinions of abortion due to these reasons, what would someone like Aristotle think of abortion? To figure this out, we have to look at this viewpoint through Aristotle’s eyes: Does having an abortion hurt one’s “teleos,” does it support his idea of justice, and does it help create a better “polis?” These are all questions we have to answer in order to understand what Aristotle would have to say about abortion. Aristotle believes in something called “teleos.” Teleos is the end goal or purpose of each and every person. Everyone has a different teleos, but what matters is if one reaches his teleos or not. For example, Aristotle explains that an acorn lying on the ground has a chance of turning into an oak tree, but something can always get …show more content…
Obviously, it is important to control the city to make life better in the city for everyone there and the control of abortion could really affect the better life people are looking for. There are many instances where a pregnant woman dies after delivering their baby. Because the mother did not abort the baby, the rest of that woman’s children would have to live without a mother. Studies show that when a parent dies, it is harder for a child to succeed in life. However, by aborting the baby, the mother could be preventing a potentially successful human being who can possibly make the world a better place. Taking these scenarios under consideration, Aristotle would have to weigh the two and decide which hurts the polis more. Overall, I believe that Aristotle would conclude that giving life to the baby is more important to give the child a better chance to change the
When touching the subject of abortion, one must consider that there are two sides battling for control. That is right, abortion has literally turned into a war zone where even the unlikely of individuals do the unthinkable. Each side has their motives and methods for contradicting the other. For instance, there are cases and events that support both sides of this issue.
Abortion is a controversial topic that has led to many arguments. Many people believe that abortion is permissible and others believe that it is impermissible. The anti-abortionists argue that the fetus is a person so it is immoral to kill an innocent person. On the other hand, the pro-choicer argue that the fetus is not considered as a person. In the article, “Why Abortion is Immoral” Don Marquis argues why abortion is wrong.
Throughout this semester, our class has discussed the morality of abortion. We have examined different philosophers’ positions on abortion and debated the pros and cons of each article. For my argument, I defined abortion as the deliberate removal of a fetus from the mother’s womb to result in the death of the fetus. My position on abortion was that it is morally permissible depending on if it’s what the mother wants, the child’s future wellbeing, and the circumstances of the pregnancy. After careful thought and consideration, I have changed some parts of my argument and kept others the same.
Abortion has been a controversial topic regarding the political, religious, spiritual, and economical views of many Americans throughout history. Understanding the difference between pursuing abortion or rejecting it at the end is an individuals option. Abortion refers to the voluntary termination of a pregnancy, resulting in the death of the fetus or embryo.(CITE) Therefore, throughout the entire life journey of Congress and legal rights, there has been a drift of thoughts towards abortion. It can be represented both parties that advocate for “pro-choice” or “pro-life” and there can be two sides presented with both arguments. After many debates and thoughts on this legal topic, one must consider if it fair and valid to legalize abortion
“A person’s a person, no matter how small” (136). The ethics of abortion has been argued emotionally for many years. In The Unaborted Socrates (Inter Varsity Press: Downers Grove, IL, 1983), Peter Kreeft approaches this important debate using fictional characters and a logic based argument. Socrates, the great ethical philosopher who lived in Athens, Greece in about 400 BC, returns in the present day (then 1983) to challenge the pro-Choice position of an abortion doctor, an ethicist and a psychologist. The result is a thoroughly logical and entertaining exposure of flaws in the pro-choice platform. The author organizes the debate of this serious moral issue -- is abortion murder -- by engaging Socrates in three dialogs. In each dialog Socrates questions a pro-choice representative about his beliefs. In each case, Socrates shows his opponent the fallacy of his position using the opponent's own words. Socrates mission is to “follow the common master” (20), using rational thought to follow the argument wherever it leads. The Unaborted Socrates draws the reader into questioning thoughts of all human beings having the right to live, the harm and evil of liberal abortion laws, and being pro-choice or pro-force.
The moral status of the fetus has been uncertain throughout Western history and beliefs “that abortion is a moral matter and that, in principle, abortion is always wrong.” (Becker. Pg. 152) Abortion has been linked to murder due to beliefs that the fetus is “moral equivalents of the child it will become.” (Luker,
Introduction: Is it immoral to have an abortion? Abortion is the process of stopping a pregnancy through the removal or killing of the fetus. Dan Marquis is adamant that abortion is wrong and that the fetus is a full human being that deserves to live while, Judith Jarvis Thomson would say that should the mother decide to terminate her pregnancy it is her body and her right. However, what if there was a third side to this already complicated issue? I argue that abortion itself is amoral and that circumstances are what shape the moral outcry or acceptance of an abortion. I will illustrate this through the concept of Rossian moral Theory.
Over the years, Abortion has become a political debate that has no definite argument of whether it is an act that is morally permissible or impermissible. According to Planned Parenthood, abortion is considered to be the premature ending of a pregnancy. The mother usually decides the process of ending a pregnancy within the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. In my essay - I will expand on the ideology of each philosopher’s relative importance on the topic of abortion.
Abortion continues to make a profound impact on public policies and remains one of the most controversial debate of our time. Though abortion continues to be a debate, it was not always a problematic one. Abortion has been present throughout history dating back to the ancient Egyptians, Greek and Roman. Before abortion became a crime in the 19th century, abortion was a womans choice. “Before abortion became the object of law, it was a subject of everyday life” (Roe v Wade BOOK p. 11). From early civilizations to today, abortion was and may still serve as a form of birth control. It has been observed that through abortion those of upper class avoided “unwanted childbearing and the lower classes used it to limit family size when 1 or more child
Aristotle’s teleological doctrine said that everyone and everything has a final cause and purpose. Although these doctrines share similarities, they are extremely different because they
There are many limitations valued when it comes to the right of abortion. The news media still outlines the pros and cons of anti-abortion rights in certain-states-to soon, the entire country. My perspectives on the issue of abortion have been entitled from it to never be banned among citizen’s rights. The reproduction of pregnancy has been emphasized heavily on a mother’s decision to abort their child, but the father of the child plays an active role since he considers to that particular title. Through this current issue, majority of the people against abortion do not seem to have an open mind to how much it primarily affects the decision of the mother amongst her own views of considering abortion.
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.
Abortion is dividing America. Without a common understanding of abortion, this issue will always be divisive in America. Throughout the history of America, abortion has been an issue that has generally separated people into two camps, those in favor of abortion and those against abortion. However, these two groups, more often than not, have not approached their understanding of this issue from the same perspective. Generally speaking, those in favor of abortion see the issue of the personal rights of women. However, those against abortion, view the issue of the rights of the child. As a result, these two perspectives will never gain unity or a common understanding of abortion. The purpose of this paper is to not only give a clear understanding of both sides of the issue, but to argue that this issue will never be a unifying issue in American culture.
It was Aristotle’s belief that everything, including humans, had a telos or goal in life. The end result or goal was said to be happiness or “eudaimonia”. He explained that eudaimonia was different for each person, and that each had a different idea of what it meant. Further, he said that people must do things in moderation, but at the same time do enough. The theory, of “the golden mean of moderation” was the basis to Aristotle's idea of the human telos and concluded that living a virtuous life must be the same for all
Abortion is a legal medical method to stop the premature delivery that is adopted in most countries of the world. It was legalized many years ago but nowadays we live in the civilized society where the human life is the most precious treasure and the question about the appropriateness of abortions is of current importance. Nowadays there are two opposing camps who present their arguments. People who support abortion insist that prohibition of it will deprive people of their rights to have free choice. On the contrary, people who stand for banning abortion claim that abortion deprive a human being from the right to live. Every person must decide for himself what is more important: deprivation of choice or deprivation of life. Another point