What defines a Human Being? The Criteria for Personhood Essay example

In Judith Jarvis Thomson’s philosophy paper, A Defense of Abortion, she argues that abortion is permissible because an individual’s right over their own body outweighs a fetus’s right to life. In this paper I will focus on whether or not abortion is always permissible. First, I will present Thomson’s argument which says that abortion is sometimes permissible. I will do so by describing her “famous violinist” thought experiment. Next, I will object to Thomson’s claim and expand the scope of her argument by arguing that abortion is in fact, always permissible. I will do so by presenting a new thought experiment. Finally, I will conclude in saying that Thomson is correct and abortion is in fact only sometimes permissible.

Those who support abortion often overuse the claim that every individual has the right to choose and it is unfair to restrict a women’s choice on abortion. Although this claim at first thought may seem to be able to uphold the abuse of abortion, we

The topic of abortion is heavily debated. One of the major controversies surrounding abortion is whether or not the embryo is a human life and able to receive the same rights as any other human. Is the embryo mentally developed enough to be considered as a human life? It is medically proven that after conception, the human brain takes many months to develop, so the “personhood” of a fetus cannot begin until about the seventh month.

There are many factors that are taken into consideration when determining if abortion is morally permissible, or wrong including; sentience of the fetus, the fetuses right to life, the difference between adult human beings and fetuses, the autonomy of the pregnant woman, and the legality of abortion. Don Marquis argues that abortion is always morally wrong, excluding cases in which the woman is threatened by pregnancy, or abortion after rape, because fetuses have a valuable future. Mary Anne Warren contends that late term abortions are morally permissible because birth is the most significant event for a fetus, and a woman’s autonomy should never be suspended.

Second, the author uses her “expanding child” example. “Trapped in a tiny house with a growing child and you are up against a wall, and in a few minutes, you will be crushed, on the other hand the child won’t be crushed. The only thing that will save her life is to kill the child. Is abortion permissible to save the pregnant woman’s life? Because the mother being compared to that of the house, this brings up the idea that the mother should be able to do as she pleases with her body, and that her body carries more significance than the fetus’ right to life. This brings in the argument of a third-party intervention, such as a doctor. If a doctor did not agree to perform an abortion, to save this mother, then the mother would be denied her rights, and the right to decide what is done with her body. If a woman doesn’t have a right to their body, then you should not be unplugged, thus, save the violinists life. This reasoning is concluded with two smart statements, “It seems to me that to treat the matter in this very way (refuse abortion for the mother’s health) is to refuse to grant the very status of person which is so firmly insisted on for the fetus by anti-abortion advocates. (243) and “a fetus who existence is due to rape” has no right to use their mother’s bodies, and aborting them is not depriving them of anything they had a

The constitution does not specifically say anything on the topic which means that it all depends on the definition of human life, (what I have analyzed thus far), as related to the interpretation of the constitution. In the fifth amendment the constitution states that “No person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” So there is our answer right there, no person - the writers didn’t write an age limit there or a limit for developmental stage. But what about a woman having liberty to do what she wants with her body. Is that true? Absolutely! But science quite clearly shows that the embryos is not part of her body, so her rights should not override the rights of the unborn

The controversy surrounding the ethicality of abortions has been a hotly debated topic during the past several decades. In the Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade, the Court ruled that women had the constitutional right to seek abortions; however, in 1989, the Court later decided that each state had the right to set its own abortion policy. Heated disagreements and different perspectives have led to the creation of two different movements: the prochoice movement and the prolife movement. The former supports abortion, the intentional ending of a pregnancy, while the latter claims that abortion is immoral. The issue has been escalated from a matter of choice to the questioning of morality – Is having an abortion the killing of a human?

It is a woman’s right to make decisions about her body. If she is the one that undergoes the stress that comes with childbirth, then it should be her right to ,and her right alone to decide whether or not she wants to go through it or not. Not doing so would violate her right to freedom of choice, as well as lead to unsafe abortions that could harm the mother (Nair, 2010). Another question is how could you kill a fetus or embryo when it is the same as a human being? Which begs the question, if the fetus is alive, then so are the eggs and sperm? How do you make the distinction?

“Abortion is the spontaneous or artificially induced expulsion of an embryo or fetus” (Abortion, 2002). An artificially induced abortion is the type referred to in the legal context. Abortions happen in different situations. The question comes when is it the right or wrong choice. The root question becomes the moment a fetus becomes a person and entitled to rights. The fetus could be a person at conception, during the pregnancy, or at birth. The deciding moment differs from the Pro-life group and Pro-choice group. After critically analyzing four different arguments about the pros and cons of abortion, one will be able to understand the ethical, moral, and

The issue of abortion is a controversial one; there are arguments on both sides of the debate. In 1973 the national case of Roe v. Wade, sparked political decisions that created a national right to abortion. Further, "Roe v. Wade declared that unborn children are not `persons ' nor are they entitled to the same constitutional protection as `born children '" (Baird, Rosenbaum, 2001). However, Roe v. Wade did not end the debate, nor, did it stop both sides for continuing the fight for their individual beliefs. On the one hand, pro-choice’s believe that woman are entitled to have abortions. Stating that an unborn child is under the rights of the pregnant women. On the other hand, pro-lifers believe that a woman should not have the right to obtain an abortion, stating that an unborn child is a human deserving the same constitutional rights as a child that has been born. The political goal most frequently mentioned by pro-lifers has been a Human Life Amendment (HLA) to thus, reverse Roe v. Wade. The HLA would declare unborn children to be "persons" deserving equal protection under the Constitution. From an ethical standpoint, one can take either side, for not only these reasons but also many more that we will further explore. I personally think that abortion is a decision that can only be made by the person in question, and not between that person and the government or an HLA. We well first look at the overall argument of the pro-choice side. After which, we will delve into the

Abortion is one of the most controversial topics of all times. The definition most people associate with abortion is the termination of unwanted pregnancy. In their essay, “The Wrong of Abortion”, Patrick Lee and Robert P. George argue that intentional abortion is unjust and therefore objectively immoral no matter the circumstances. Also, they argue that “the burden of carrying the baby is significantly less than the harm the baby would suffer by being killed; the mother and father have a special responsibility to the child; it follows that intentional abortion (even in few cases where the baby’s death is an unintended but foreseen side effect) is unjust ” (24).

Based on the view that the fetus is already a small baby, some extreme anti-abortionists would maintain that abortion is impermissible even to save the mothers life. The rationale behind this view would be that the child is innocent, and killing the child would be active, on the other hand, letting the mother die would be passive. This introduces two new concepts, the first being the mother’s rights in competition to those of the fetus and the second being the question of innocence and how we would define this (Langley).

When faced with the choice of life or death, most people would choose to live. In fact, most would not want someone else making that decision for them. They would claim that as a living and independent entity it is solely their choice as to whether they continue to live or not. While this concept may seem fairly straightforward, there seems to be some great debate when it is applied to abortion. For many, they will maintain that the fetus has the right to life no matter the situation. There are some who will argue that abortion is morally permissible in specific circumstances and there are even those that will claim that abortion is always permissible. Why is there such a great divide? A major factor that plays a part in this is whether abortion involves more than one life. Because determining the beginning point of life is such a complex and emotional debate, there will be the same allowance in this paper as there was in Judith Jarvis Thomson’s “A Defense of Abortion”. As she eloquently put it “I propose then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception” (p. 721). This will allow for a look into the moral debate of abortion from a more grounded stage. As discussed early in Thomson’s paper, most of the debate on abortion rests on whether the fetus is alive or not. Whereas the focus should be on the many other aspects of pregnancies that may lead to a mother wanting an abortion.

In our society, there are many ethical dilemmas that we are faced with that are virtually impossible to solve. One of the most difficult and controversial issues that we are faced with is abortion. There are many strong arguments both for and against the right to have an abortion which are so complicated that it becomes impossible to resolve. The complexity of this issue lies in the different aspects of the argument. The essence of a person, rights, and who is entitled to these rights, are a few of the many aspects which are very difficult to define. There are also issues of what circumstances would justify abortion. Because the issue of abortion is virtually impossible to solve, all one can hope

The following essay will examine the morality of abortion with specific reference to the writings of Don Marquis, Judith Jarvis Thompson, Peter Singer and Mary Anne Warren. I will begin by assessing the strength of the argument provided by Marquis which claims that abortion is impermissible because it deprives a being of a potential “future like ours,” and then go on to consider the writings of Singer, Thomson and Warren to both refute Marquis claims and support my assertion that abortion is morally permissible primarily because of the threat to the freedom and bodily autonomy of women extending the right to life to a foetus in utero would pose.