Infanticide Is Ever Permissible Or Not?

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.

The fetus has a valuable future, just as we consider children, the retarded or mentally ill to have valuable futures, thus killing a fetus is not morally permissible. Another pro-choice argument is that the fetus has no desire to live and consequently there is no wrongness in killing. Marquis criticizes this viewpoint, as society believes it is morally wrong to kill those who have no desire to live, and those who are unconscious or suicidal (Gedge & Waluchow, 2012, p220).

There are methods in the justification of aiding in the death of an impaired infant. Engelhardt outlines that there is a distinction between aiding the death of adult and children. The question of status is also explored to determine that children are neither self-possessed nor responsible. The concept of Injury of Continued Existence is given to look at the potential person the infant might become if allowed to exist. These examples are provided to give a thorough evaluation of a child before the decision is made whether or not to prolong life.

Nearly 8 thousand innocent unborn babies are deprived of their right to life each day in the name of a crime, named abortion. Beginning in 1973, the world has accepted this horrific practice, condoned it and now go as far as support it. millions of children have not seen the light of day due to their parent’s decision to slaughter one of their own. However, there still remains to be support of the brutal practice of abortion. These young inhabitants will never so much as enjoy the beauty of the natural light. Abortion is human cruelty that seems to be ignored every second due to the indecency of the parents of slaughtered their own babies every second.

Historical background was provided in great detail on infanticide in the opening section, this set a precedent that these topics were researched in great length. Throughout the chapter, Davis provided historical support on the other topics presented in this chapter through court cases and research studies. Davis’ support was most beneficial when presented in the form of court cases that have shaped the laws present today and even those that are not commonly known.

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.

According to Don Marquis in his essay, “Why Abortion is Immoral,” killing is wrong because it is morally impermissible to cause the victim to be “deprived of all of the value of [his] future” (Marquis, 55). Marquis states that “abortion is prima facie wrong” (Marquis, 57) because killing a fetus deprives it of a valuable future like ours. Marquis’ assessment of killing and his claim that abortion is morally impermissible are not plausible under his argument.

Out of respect for those other persons, we shouldn't kill infants. The same is not true of most abortions, because our valuing something does not outweigh the actual rights of the pregnant woman.

Proponents of punishing pregnant women, who put their fetuses at risk, have highlighted some pertinent legal and ethical issues. One is that a viable fetus (fetus after 27 weeks gestation) has certain rights and privileges. They are of the opinion that as soon as the fetus is viable and can survive independently from it mother, it becomes a

Thou shalt not kill; one-tenth of what may arguably be the most famous guidelines of morality in the western culture, and also the main driving force for pro-life advocates. The argument supporting their beliefs typically starts with the premises that a fetus is a person, and to destroy or to kill a person is unethical. Therefore abortion, the premeditated destruction of a human being, is murder, and consequently unethical. I deny the fact that the fetus, what I will refer to as an embryo up to 22 weeks old, has the right to live. The opposing argument is invalid because a fetus, although perhaps a part of human species, is not formally a person. This leaves it simply to be a part of the woman?s body, whose fate lies solely in the

I will tackle Marquis argument my assuming it is wrong to kill a fetus at young development, because it robs from future actives and pleasures, and killing brings pain and suffering to those could have met the unborn. I compare a fetus to a spot of mold where one spot doesn't have much of an impact or hazard compared to a whole wall of mold. Abortion is morally justified because although the process might bring mental hardship it’s worse to bring a person into the world without being able to provide either emotionally or financially. Our Foster system is so overpacked with children hopping to find a home and although some may say they are glad their Mother did not abort them I would say at a fetus stage they consciousness and capacity is not

Do you think it is right to take the life of a baby? Do you feel like you have the right to take that baby’s life? In the US. today abortion is a big problem. Some people feel like they have the right to take the baby’s life because it is their child but that should be right the baby should have the right to live. Having an abortion at one point in your life can damage your physical and mental health, it can also lead to miscarriages in the future is you actually want to have a kid and not kill it. People who are Pro-choice believe they should have the right to abort their baby because they don’t want it due to their age or rape, but why should you kill a baby because of that when you can put the baby up for adoption and let it have a good

Based on the view that the fetus is already a small baby, some extreme anti-abortionists would maintain that abortion is impermissible even to save the mothers life. The rationale behind this view would be that the child is innocent, and killing the child would be active, on the other hand, letting the mother die would be passive. This introduces two new concepts, the first being the mother’s rights in competition to those of the fetus and the second being the question of innocence and how we would define this (Langley).

This begins at five weeks. If a baby is killed after five weeks, it should be considered murder. When someone is shot and their heart never stops beating, it is called attempted murder, but if the victim’s heart stops beating, it is classified as a homicide. When a woman decides to abort her child after five weeks, she is stopping the heart of a human being. Abortionists argue that even if a baby has a heartbeat, it could not live outside of the womb until it is around twenty-five weeks, therefore it is not murder to kill someone that would not survive anyway. That is the same as killing someone who is terminally ill just because they are not going to survive. A four year old also cannot live on his own without a safe environment and nutrients, just as a baby cannot survive without the safety and nutrition of the mother’s womb. Does that mean it is okay to kill a four year old too? Abortion will always be a debatable topic, so listen to your heart, the one that has been beating inside of you since you were five weeks old, because it will help you make the right

Even though the baby cannot speak or walk yet, it is still a life, and no one has the right to take another person’s life.