Right to Live In the Article In Defense of Abortion and Infanticide by Michael Tooley

The case was filed anyway with the agreement that the 1859 Texas abortion law violated a women’s constitutional right to have an abortion. The attorneys in the case were Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee who represented the plaintiff and John Tolle and Jay Floyd were chosen to represent the defendant; Tolle was selected to defend the enforcement of the Texas abortion law and

Michael Tooley, the author of ‘Abortion and Infanticide’, argues that an organism must possess certain properties to possess a right to life. He states that an organism possess a serious right to life only if it possess the concept of self as a continuing subject of experiences and other mental states, and believes that it itself is a continuing entity (p. 44). Furthermore, he argues that there are certain requirements to meet this claim. To say one only has a right to life if it possesses a concept of self as a continuing subject is a bold statement. If claiming a fetus does not have a right to life because they do not possess a concept of self, then what about an human who is suffering from a disease that makes them

     Abortion has always been an extremely controversial issue. There are, and will probably always be many different views concerning the ethical acceptability as well as the social policy aspects of abortion. In fact, before the decision made in the famous court case of Roe v. Wade, abortion was morally wrong and was constituted as a crime that could lead to a prison sentence of up to five years. In Roe v. Wade, many unsettled questions were avowed and discussed.

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.

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

Thomson’s argument, “A Defense on Abortion,” is a piece written to point out the issues in many arguments made against abortion. She points out specific issues in arguments made, for example, about life beginning at conception and if that truly matters as an argument against abortion. Thomson uses multiple analogies when making her points against the arguments made against abortion. These analogies are used to show that the arguments made do not really make sense in saying it is immoral to have an abortion. These analogies do not work in all cases, and sometimes they only work in very atypical cases, but still make a strong argument. There are also objections made to Thomson’s argument, which she then replies to, which makes her argument even stronger. Her replies to these arguments are very strong, saying biology does not always equate responsibility, and that reasonable precaution is an important factor in the morality of abortion. There are some major issues in her responses to these objections.

Every year, as many as a million lives are aborted; lives that could potentially have been your neighbor, your friend, or even your son or daughter. Abortion is the surgical process of killing a baby by various means; and has been in effect since the Supreme Court ruling on Roe V. Wade in 1973 which legalized it nationwide. It was, at first, endorsed as being a woman’s right, but has more recently been viewed by most as the murder of an innocent child. Besides this shift in views, abortion has caused diverse effects on our culture and nation, as well as the death of upwards of 56 million children according to Life News. Our society has been deeply impacted by the effects of abortion and the loss of millions of innocent lives, and Christian

In “A Defense of Abortion” by Judith Jarvis Thompson, Thompson works to argue that even if a human fetus is considered a person, abortion is still often morally permissible. This paper will work to explain Thompson’s positions on the different accounts of the right to life, and to provide an evaluation of them and explain why they are not plausible, specifically regarding three of the analogies on-which she based her entire argument: the violinist, the coat, and the case of Kitty Genovese, as well as to explore a logical counterargument and explain why it’s stance is impermissible.

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

Yet, it is your duty to look after your baby. As Kant suggests, if you

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

The morality of induced abortion is one of the most controversial moral issues of our time. Abortion has grown to be one, if no the most, debated argument of modern times. In the following web-page, we will be discussing abortion in three of its major aspects: Public Opinion, Congress and Courts, and Interest groups.

In the article Ethics of Abortion, much of the pro life argument seems to be

Michael Tooley's article, "Abortion and Infanticide" raised some points about the morality of abortion. He discussed the conservatives' ethical objection against abortion which states that fetuses and infants have a right to life. The conservatives believe that early abortion is immoral. In his article, he made a case against the conservative position on abortion. His case boils down to two claims:

There is not simple justification that our society can provide to distinguish who has a right to life and who does not. My view is that just because a fetus and nonhuman animals do not fit exactly under Warren’s list of characteristics to being a human, does not mean it does not have a right to life. Any animal, terminally ill human, growing fetus, or extraterrestrial being that is living has a right to life. Some may argue that a fetus does not have a right to life because there is no specific stage of fetal development that makes a fetus resemble a human enough. However, despite this claim to be true, it does not provide a solid bases to claim that it does or does not have a significant right to life. Therefore, both claims above do not make since because you cannot claim one to have a right to life while denying the other; both human fetuses and nonhuman animals have a right to life.