Summary Of The Ethics Of Care And Sympathy By Michael Plote

If a woman concedes to voluntary sexual intercourse, she has incurred a responsibility to care for the fetus, since she is responsible for its existence and subsequent dependence on her body for sustenance. Consequently, she has a moral obligation to sustain it until birth, an obligation that ought to be legally enforced by proscribing abortions. (Manninen 41)

From these two notions stems three basic views, or platforms, individuals use as the backbone for their argument when making their case for the right or wrongness of abortion. Conservatives believe under no circumstance is it morally acceptable to perform an abortion. Liberals believe abortions are permissible at any time during pregnancy and for any reason. Lastly, moderates stand behind the notion that abortions are morally permissible in some situations but not all. Over time hundreds of philosophers have attempted to justify their view point with sound theories; three of which, Don Marquis, Michael Tooley and Judith Thomson, seem to have done so successfully.

She then reconstructs the initial argument to state that it is morally impermissible to abort a fetus if it has the right to life and has the right to the mother's body. The fetus has the right to life but only has the right to a mother's body if the mother voluntarily gives that right to the fetus. Therefore it is only in the case of voluntary pregnancy is abortion impermissible.

The issue of abortion has always been a controversial one for citizens of the United States. Abortion is the practice of terminating a pregnancy after the embryo has been planted in the uterus (Abortion). An individual’s stance on this controversial issue categorizes them into one of two very different groups. An individual who feels that a woman should not have an abortion- due to moral or religious views- is said to be “pro-life”. Coincidently, those who feel that a woman should have the right to choose abortion are said to be “pro-choice”. “Pro-life” supporters point to the practice of abortion as an immoral one. Supporters state abortion is immoral because it takes away the rights of the unborn fetus, since activists consider human

Don Marquis agrees with anti-abortionists that abortion is morally wrong, but finds that they are not making the right arguments to justify this. There is much debate over what comprises a human being or when a fetus becomes a person, and if only a human life is of great value, so I will use the general term “X” to present Marquis’s overall argument. If X has a future like ours which has great value, then depriving X of that future is immoral. X has a future like ours, thereby making it immoral to kill X. Obviously, this is a broad argument defending the anti-abortionist viewpoint. In this case, X is a fetus, so the argument becomes much more specific. If a fetus has a future like ours which has great value, depriving a fetus of this future is morally wrong. A fetus has a future like ours, so killing the fetus is morally wrong.

defends that abortion is a morally sound action. Don Marquis, in his essay An Argument that Abortion is Wrong, takes the opposite stance. He claims “that abortion, except perhaps in rare instances, is seriously wrong”.

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.

Morality and Duties: There are many reasons women choose to seek an abortion but “one of the most common reasons is that they do not have room in their life just then to be a mother, [and] they know if they continue the pregnancy they will not be able to give it up” (p. 312). Little strongly believes that this is a “perfectly sensible, and often wise,” decision (p. 312). Before morally judging a woman based on her decision, one must learn to “appreciate the different moral contours involved with entering, existing in and exiting a relationship” (p. 312). A woman’s morals cannot be judged given she “may have good reason to decline,” gestation — for example a woman can argue that her reason is “more [of] a refusal to create than a decision to destroy” (p. 30). It must be recognized that “ [being] asked

The debate about the legality of abortion involves debating the legal status of the fetus. If the fetus is a person, anti-choice activists argue, then abortion is murder and should be illegal. Even if the fetus is a person, though, abortion may have justified as necessary to women’s body self-govern but that wouldn’t mean that abortion is automatically ethical. Perhaps the state can’t force women to carry pregnancies to term, but it could argue that it is the most ethical choice.

The moral question has always been whether or not it should be a woman’s decision to get an abortion. The other side of that question is whether the

Even though many people practice pro-life because of their religion, it may be surprising to learn that catholic women are 29% more likely to get an abortion than Protestant women, though they are as likely as all women to do so2. In Christianity abortion has been considered homicide since Pope Sixtus V declared it so, but the debate didn’t become heated until the 19th century1. So even these pro-life supporters sometimes find the circumstances where abortion is necessary. An example of a situation where you may see this is in a given situation where bearing a child and giving birth would kill the mother because of health issues or womb complications the fetus would have. It’s said that the risks of death associated with childbirth is 10 times higher than

Aristotle and Rita Manning both have different theories when it comes to ethics. Aristotle uses virtue ethics to answer questions about morality whereas Manning uses what is called ethics of caring to do the same thing. Virtue ethics claims people’s actions aim towards the highest good of happiness. From happiness, moral virtue stems from reasons governing the desires of the soul. Manning on the other hand believes that moral actions extend from people caring for one another on a personal level. By developing the ability to care for others, people become morally aware of how to act in certain situations. When the question of: “how ought I live my life?”

The ethics of care may be a normative moral theory: a theory concerning what makes actions virtuously right or wrong. It's one amongst a cluster of normative moral theories that were developed by feminists within the half of the 20th century. Whereas consequentialist and deontological moral theories emphasize universal standards and non-partisanship, ethics of care emphasize the importance of response. Ethics of care contrasts with additional well-known moral views, like consequentialist theories and deontological theories. This kind of outlook is what feminist critics decision a justice view of morality. A morality is a care that rests on the understanding of relationships as a response to a different in their terms.

It is widely known that some people possess personalities that have the natural ability to be more empathetic and caring towards others compared to other people. Unfortunately, the stereotype and generalizing of viewing women as automatically more empathetic than men is also prominent in today’s culture. This fundamental image of women and men possessing different views on morality is discussed with Carol Gilligan’s theory of “care ethics” which is more based on feministic views compared to Kohlberg’s “justice ethics” which focuses on the moral development of boys (Caputo, 2000).

Care Ethics (Feminist Ethics) is the importance of caring relationships in life whether its human or animal related. The main goal of care ethics is to maintain and promote caring relationships. Care ethics involves helping both yourself and the world around you. It gives you the motivation to care for others beside yourself. Care ethics according to the article is more a “general approach” than a theory in regards to other ethical practices. The goal of care ethics is to show that women have the same equal rights as men and that they both have freedoms of their own. This is important as this is helping to address equality among the human race. Care ethics as a whole revolves around emotions.