Is Abortion Morally Indefensible?

In Judith Jarvis Thomson’s philosophy paper, A Defense of Abortion, she argues that abortion is permissible because an individual’s right over their own body outweighs a fetus’s right to life. In this paper I will focus on whether or not abortion is always permissible. First, I will present Thomson’s argument which says that abortion is sometimes permissible. I will do so by describing her “famous violinist” thought experiment. Next, I will object to Thomson’s claim and expand the scope of her argument by arguing that abortion is in fact, always permissible. I will do so by presenting a new thought experiment. Finally, I will conclude in saying that Thomson is correct and abortion is in fact only sometimes permissible.

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.

Abortion is defined as “The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.” (Oxford Dictionary). Nearly three out of ten women in the U.S. have an abortion by the time they are 45-years-old (Planned Parenthood). Abortion is morally permissible because an abortion prevents a woman and the potential child’s suffering. Abortion is moral because it is a fundamental right of competent adults to make their own decisions on the course of their medical treatment, can alleviate further suffering in immoral cases, such as rape and is protected by rule of law.

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.

The purpose of this essay is to set out an argument that abortion is wrong. Some claim that only in “rare” instances, such as rape or within a few days of contraception, abortion is acceptable. I will agree that there are certain circumstances that abortion is more “acceptable” than other times, albeit however few and far between these instances arise. Instances that make abortion more “okay” are rape, and once it is discovered that the mother's life is in danger if she were to carry the baby the full term of the pregnancy. The basis for my argument comes from reading two opposing essays on abortion , in regards to whether it is “right” or wrong, “A defense of Abortion” by Judith

Abortion is a polarizing issue that many have firm opinions about. Abortion is a moral issue because it involves whether or not a fetus has the right to life and if ending that life is considered to be murder or not. Don Marquis presents the argument that abortion is morally wrong because it deprives the fetus of a future. Marquis continues that any action that robs a person of a future, such as abortion, is morally wrong. Marquis’ argument for abortion is unsound, especially for cases such as rape. To illustrate, if Marquis argues that any action that robs a person of a future is morally wrong, then it follows that a woman who suffered the consequences of rape is also robbed of a potential future. It is important to consider involuntary pregnancies

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

The author argues that abortion can be done to save a mother’s life. For example, if a mother has a health problem that will not allow her to carry the pregnancy then abortion should be done in order to save her life (Feinberg and Shafer-Landau 28, 29). Furthermore, she argues that even though abortion is presumed as killing a child, the refusal to perform an abortion to an ill mother similarly results in the death of the mother. So it is unfair to the mother as both of them have equal rights to life and no one is inferior to the other (Feinberg and Shafer-Landau 642). In addition, the author states that the extreme view that abortion is killing/murdering an unborn child is false (Feinberg and Shafer-Landau 30). In a like manner, if a pregnancy poses a death risk to a mother, she has the right to defend herself even if in doing so involves killing the unborn child.

Whether or not abortion is permissible has held controversy for several years. Many people believe it is impermissible to have an abortion because the fetus is a person, therefore, it is murder. Judith Thomson proposes that abortion is permissible. With both sides, there comes several different objections. I will argue against Thomson’s argument that abortion is permissible and show that it is, in fact, impermissible.

In discussions of abortion, a controversial issue has been whether abortion is morally permissible. According to anti-abortionists, abortion is the killing of an innocent fetus and is therefore not morally permissible. According to Judith Jarvis Thomson, however, abortion is not morally wrong in most cases and she attacks the anti-abortionist argument. Therefore, they disagree on whether abortion is morally permissible or not. In this paper, I will outline the anti-abortionists argument in numbered premise-conclusion form and show which premise Thomson attacks. After that, I will summarize her thought experiments and defend Thomson’s argument against two possible objections from the anti-abortionists.

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).

This author has chosen to discuss the ethical issues of abortion. This is a highly debated topic that will exist amongst women. It is happening at high rates. “In 2013, 664,435 legal induced abortions

In our society, there are many ethical dilemmas that we are faced with that are virtually impossible to solve. One of the most difficult and controversial issues that we are faced with is abortion. There are many strong arguments both for and against the right to have an abortion which are so complicated that it becomes impossible to resolve. The complexity of this issue lies in the different aspects of the argument. The essence of a person, rights, and who is entitled to these rights, are a few of the many aspects which are very difficult to define. There are also issues of what circumstances would justify abortion. Because the issue of abortion is virtually impossible to solve, all one can hope

When conceived, the unborn child is entirely innocent and there is no reason for extermination. Murder is illegal throughout the world, so why is it right to kill a faultless human being? Why is killing a helpless, voiceless, developing child justified? The answer to both of these questions is that, it is not okay. Allowing another person to determine the fate of a powerless human being is fallacious. Also, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act protects children in the womb from murder and from attack in the United States. This act is currently effective, but abortions are still being performed everyday. When a woman is sentenced to the death penalty and is pregnant, the law in the United States requires the executor to wait until the baby is born to execute the mother. Therefore, if

All around the world, unborn babies are being killed everyday. Abortion has become one of the most common operations in the US today. People that are “pro-choice” believe that it is acceptable for a woman to have the choice to abort her baby or not. They say that it is the legal right of a woman. They believe that a baby is not yet alive until it has been born. It is argued that a woman should be able to do what is best for her future, health, and body. On the other side of the spectrum lies people that are “pro-life”. They believe that human life begins at the time of conception and that killing what is unborn is murder. They defend this with arguments from science, as well as scripture. Pro-choice believes in abortion because it will benefit the majority of women and possibly families. They are looking out for themselves and their best interests. It is Utilitarianism as well as egoism. They believe it is morally acceptable to end the life of the unborn. It will provide the majority with an unwanted pregnancy and a way out of a tough situation. Pro-life is against abortion because of a religious authority and because it will benefit a majority (unborn babies). They believe it is morally unacceptable to end the life of the unborn.