Thesis: Is Abortion Morally Permissible?

controversial topic of abortion. He examines questions such as how do you determine the humanity of a being? His thesis is that abortion is always morally wrong with the exception of extreme circumstances such as a cancerous uterus or ectopic pregnancy. He uses the assumption that a fetus is always a person, from conception on as opposed to believing the fetus is not a person at any point. In this paper, I will show that Noonan proves his thesis that abortion is always morally wrong, based on proving

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

Why Abortion is Not Always Immoral In his essay Why Abortion is Immoral Don Marquis attempts to argue that abortion is almost always wrong except for a few special circumstances such as when the life of the mother is being threatened by the pregnancy. In his thesis Marquis asserts that abortion is in the same moral category as killing an innocent adult human being and the ethics of abortion is solvable. The strongest argument that Marquis presents to defend his thesis is the claim that what makes

Thomson’s essay “A Defense of Abortion” (1971), she defends the thesis that abortion is morally permissible. She argues that even if a fetus is a person, and possesses every right to life, that that in itself does not constitute the impermissibility of abortion. In this essay, I will defend and critique Thomson’s defense of abortion’s moral permissibility in light of apparent weaknesses that critics have pointed out. Thomson’s argues that abortion is morally permissible. She grants, for the sake of

Thesis: If the law does not breach person A’s moral code, and person A knows beyond a reasonable doubt that breaking the law could harm another human being (weighing the potential consequences), it is morally wrong for person A to knowingly violate the laws of country C. If [Conditions] are not met, then it is morally permissible. Part One: I’d like to examine my thesis in parts. First, If a law were to breach person A’s moral code, the law itself would go against what person A reasonably believes

you slice it, abortion is morally wrong. Although that should not be misinterpreted for a pro-life stance on abortion because there are numerous circumstances that must be considered in each situation. Just because abortion is morally impermissible, it does not mean that society will deem you a bad person for getting an abortion under extreme circumstances. For that reason, abortion is a specifically tricky topic to discuss. There is no clear-cut answer as to whether or not abortion should be allowed

reason in which abortion may be considered morally wrong, but she also notes that there are true causes for a legal and moral abortion. She also writes that some women choose to go on with the pregnancy even when it may cause her more harm. The “Good Samaritan” term is used as a protagonist by anti-abortionists who uses this term a moral compass. Bottom line, Thompson sums up her argument pointing out that abortion is more of a gray area than most would consider. That abortion is some cases, not

if she did not have an abortion. In such circumstances, the woman’s right to self-defence outweighs a fetus’ right to life, however I would not allow that the mother’s right outweighs the fetus’ if the mother wanted to have an abortion of convenience because this denies the child of possible future experiences. Firstly, I will outline Judith Jarvis Thomson’s argument for self-defence. In her article, ‘A Defense of Abortion’, Thomson provides an analogy in favour of abortion. She asks the reader to

Therefore, according to Marquis, a new strategy should be adopted to develop the argument o abortion. In this case, the author starts by illustrating why killing an ordinary adult is morally wrong, and tries to apply same reasons to the case of abortion. Therefore, if similar reasons can be applied to the context of abortion, then decision of it being immoral will be made. The wrong aspect in killing relates to depriving the victim life which is inherently valuable. In this case, killing deprives

Warren Warren’s thesis is that fetuses are not persons and since only persons have full moral rights and person-like beings have a right to life in particular, fetuses do not have a right to life. She argues that fetuses are not persons because they lack the basic qualifying traits of personhood or moral humanity. She also believes that the rights of actual persons will always override the rights of potential persons and that there should be no restrictions on when an abortion must occur by. Her