Michelle Nunn Abortion Analysis

The issue of Abortions has been a controversy for years now. There are two main groups for this problem, Pro-Life, and Pro-Choice. Pro-Life supports the human rights of life should be embraced, by religion and ethics. Pro-choice is when someone wants to make this choice without no remorse of human life, but because someone wants no part of it raising one.

In Judith A. Thomson’s article, ‘A defense of abortion’ Thomson defends her view that in some cases abortion is morally permissible. She takes this stance even with the premise that fetuses upon the moment of conception are in fact regarded as persons. However one criticism of her argument would be that there is a biological relationship between mother and fetus however there is no biological relationship between you and the violinist. Having this biological relationship therefore entails special responsibility upon the mother however there is no responsibility in the case of the violinist. Thomson argues against those who are opposed to abortion with her violinist thought experiment.

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.

The topic of Abortion is a topic discussed globally around the world. In today’s times, it is one of the most controversial topics, is abortion moral or immoral? Philosopher Don Marquis states, “abortion is, except possibly in rare cases, seriously immoral, that it is in the same moral category as killing an innocent adult human being…” (Marquis 223). When viewing the readings of Philosopher Marquis, it seems that abortion is immoral but when you look at what Philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson has to say, who doesn’t agree with the fact that abortion is immoral and gives great examples to back up her claim, you begin to think so what is abortion, moral or immoral? Both Philosophers have very strong arguments to back up their claims but I’m

In her article, “The Defense of Abortion”, Judith Jarvis Thomson states an analogy involving a violinist. She first states that you are allowed to unplug yourself in the violinist scenario, second abortion after rape is analogous to the violinist scenario, therefore, you should be allowed to unplug yourself and be allowed to abort after rape (Chwang, Abortion slide 12). In this paper, I will argue that abortion is morally acceptable even if the fetus is considered a person. This paper will criticize premise two from the traditional argument against abortion string that killing innocent persons is wrong (Chwang, Abortion slide 9). Following the violinist analogy will be an objection to this analogy and my respons to them. One of the

This essay will explore the morality of abortion through the use of Don Marquis’ theories, as well as comparing them to Judith Thomson in order to effectively explain and present my argument that the decision of abortion is dependent on the growth of personhood. From this, I will present my belief that abortion is morally incorrect and should not be permitted except in extreme circumstances. I intend to achieve this through supportive arguments as well as counter-arguments provided by these given authors.

In the paper titled “A Defense of Abortion” Judith Thomson uses several premises to bring the readers to the conclusion that Abortion is not morally wrong. After reading her paper I have concluded, that abortion is in fact morally wrong, excluding extenuating circumstances. In this paper I will show that abortion is morally wrong by way of the following argument:

In Thomson’s defence of abortion she argues that abortion is permissible when a mother’s life is not at risk. Working on her interpretation of the secular conservative argument, she first assumes that the premise of a foetus being a person is true, then moves onto the second premise, that a person has the right to life. Analysing what the right to life means, she first looks at the idea that the right to life is the right to have the bare minimum a person needs in order to survive. She quickly rebuts this by providing the Henry Fonda analogy and the violinist analogy. Both of these show that just because a person needs something to survive, like Henry Fonda’s cool hand or another person’s kidneys, a person doesn’t have the right to take it. With this in mind she modifies the argument so that the right to life is the right not to be killed. This she rebuffs with the violin analogy, noting that by pulling the plugs you would in effect be killing the violinist. While the violinist didn’t have the right to your kidneys, it could be argued that he does have the right for you not to intervene. However these are your kidneys, and you should not be forced to allow him continued use. Having ascertained that the right to life is not the right to the bare minimum needed to survive, nor the right not to be killed, she concludes that the right to life is the right not to be killed unjustly, or the

Republican Congressman Mike Moon (R-Missouri) posted a disturbing video on Monday promoting his views on abortion.

The issue of abortion is one of the most sensitive and controversial issues faced by modern societies. This issue leads to topics of whether abortion is right or wrong, if it is the actual killing of a person, and what actually defines the moral status of a fetus. In this paper, I will be arguing against Bonnie Steinbock, who believes that abortions are morally acceptable. So I will be supporting the view that abortions are not morally acceptable.

In Mary Anne Warren’s “The Abortion Issue,” children are not persons in the empirical sense. Warren believes that prior to a certain point in a pregnancy, the child does not have “the capacity to understand” the ramifications of what an abortion would be, therefore the abortion does not infringe upon the rights of the unborn fetus. She states that: “…in the ways that matter from a moral point of view, human fetuses are very unlike human persons, particularly in their early months of development”(152). In essence, personhood as defined by Warren can only come after the first trimester. Before that time, the fetus does not have the sentience that would make it a person. Warren’s main criteria for

In the article 'A Defense of Abortion' Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that abortion is morally permissible even if the fetus is considered a person. In this paper I will give a fairly detailed description of Thomson main arguments for abortion. In particular I will take a close look at her famous 'violinist' argument. Following will be objections to the argumentative story focused on the reasoning that one person's right to life outweighs another person's right to autonomy. Then appropriate responses to these objections. Concluding the paper I will argue that Thomson's 'violinist' argument supporting the idea of a mother's right to autonomy outweighing a fetus' right to life does not

As early as 1550 B.C., Egyptians were performing abortions. Egyptians documented the techniques they used to perform abortions and by the Middle Ages, the concept of abortion had spread globally (PRB). Knowing the idea, of terminating a pregnancy, was being performed in 1550 B.C., the number of babies lost to this horrific death will never truly be known. Since 1969, the CDC started documenting the numbers of legal abortions obtained in the United States. Roe vs. Wade was the infamous court case that made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, in 1973, that assisted abortion in becoming completely legal. The United National Library of Medicine published that since that day in 1973 abortion rates peaked but remained continuous through the

Judith Jarvis Thomson proposes her argument in her article, A Defense of Abortion. There, she explains to her readers during what circumstances is abortion justifiable. Thomson uses the argument by analogy strategy to explain to her readers her argument. She tries to reach her conclusion by comparing it to similar cases. The point she is trying to make is to tell her readers that abortion is morally permissible only in some cases, like when the mother has been a victim of rape, when contraception has failed or when the pregnancy is of danger to the mother. She explains to her readers that abortion is justifiable only in some cases, not all. Thomson uses the case of a violinist to show her readers that abortion is morally permissible when a woman has been victim of rape. She also uses the people seeds story as an analogy to explain that abortion is morally acceptable when contraception has failed. Thomson also mentions the right to life in her article. She uses the right to life to explain to us that it is morally justifiable for the mother to abort the fetus when the fetus is endangering the mother’s life. In order to help her readers understand the notion of right to life she is trying to propose to us, she does so by using the Henry Fonda example. In my point of view, I find most of Thomson’s analogies irrelevant to the argument she is trying to make. I will explain to my readers why I find Thomson’s analogies irrelevant.

The controversy within the biomedical ethics topic, abortion, has two main proponents. The first is the view against abortion, also known as pro-life. The other view is rooted upon the belief of being pro-choice, or basically for abortions. These two different views are like two mathematical principles, in that although these two views have many differences, they also have larger similarities in the background. For example, when pro-choice activists support abortions due to unwanted pregnancies, the activists are not rallying behind the idea of sexual incompetency (pregnancies due to lack of birth control). Rather, they are supporting the idea that women have the right to choose what to do with their own bodies. In order to understand