Politics are everywhere. Everything a person does can be construed to support or favor a political ideology, agenda, or topic. With so much conversation happening, especially focusing on women’s rights, it’s not uncommon to find abortion debates. There seems to be only two options, pro-life or pro-choice. However, Michael Slote does offer some middle grounds based on the morality of abortion. In “The Ethics of Care and Empathy” Slote states that certain situations offer a more moral responsibility to a fetus than others. I take issue with his assumption, specifically in the case of a mother aborting a child out of spite and having a late term abortion is worse than an early term abortion.
Slote poses the argument that abortion could be seen as morally (morality being what is right and wrong, in a simple sense) acceptable if the woman knew she could not provide a good life for the child. This includes not being finically or…show more content… If we are not striving to be as moral as possible, then what is the point in living? If a woman wishes to live a fulfilling life with a career, then why would she not care about her own morality? Slote might also make the argument that simply carrying a child to term then giving it up for adoption would be better than simply aborting it. The point I made about a woman thinking of herself first could be argued back that she becomes pregnant, it is no longer just about her. Many people believe life begins at conception, so upon finding out she is pregnant, a woman should begin making decisions based on the wellbeing of the future child. Slote makes assumptions about morality regarding abortion that do not apply for every situation. There is no one correct answer when it comes to abortion, but shaming women out of having them by questioning the morality of their choices certainly isn’t the correct path to