When It Comes To The Debate On Abortion, Many People Look

In this paper I am going to critically evaluate “A Defense of Abortion” by Judith Thompson, a moral philosopher and metaphysician, who argues that is morally okay to abort a fetus even if the fetus is considered a person and contrast it to another moral philosopher and utilitarian, Peter Singer who deems her argument to be flawed.

One of the most frequently debated topics in bioethics is the morality of abortion, or the ending of a pregnancy without physically giving birth to an infant. Often times abortions are categorized into either spontaneous, a natural miscarriage; induced or intentional, which is premeditated and for any reason; or therapeutic, which albeit intentional, its sole purpose is to save the mother’s life. It seems however that moral conflicts on issue mainly arise when discussing induced abortions. In general, people universally agree it is morally wrong to kill an innocent person and in some people’s eyes induced abortions are the intentional killings of innocent persons, thus making them immoral. However not all individuals view fetuses as persons and consequentially argue it is not morally wrong to kill them.

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.

Throughout this semester, our class has discussed the morality of abortion. We have examined different philosophers’ positions on abortion and debated the pros and cons of each article. For my argument, I defined abortion as the deliberate removal of a fetus from the mother’s womb to result in the death of the fetus. My position on abortion was that it is morally permissible depending on if it’s what the mother wants, the child’s future wellbeing, and the circumstances of the pregnancy. After careful thought and consideration, I have changed some parts of my argument and kept others the same.

Before the premises are argued for, the following assumptions must be made. I will follow the same assumptions that Judith Thompson made in her paper. These assumptions are that a fetus is considered a human and that this argument will exclude the extreme circumstances such as rape. Therefore, this paper will focus solely on consensual sex and the morals of abortion following such intercourse, even in the case of dangers to the mothers’ life.

The issue of abortion is one of the most sensitive and controversial issues faced by modern societies. This issue leads to topics of whether abortion is right or wrong, if it is the actual killing of a person, and what actually defines the moral status of a fetus. In this paper, I will be arguing against Bonnie Steinbock, who believes that abortions are morally acceptable. So I will be supporting the view that abortions are not morally acceptable.

The debate about abortion focuses on two issues; 1.) Whether the human fetus has the right to life, and, if so, 2.) Whether the rights of the mother override the rights of the fetus. The two ethicists who present strong arguments for their position, and who I am further going to discuss are that of Don Marquis and Judith Thomson. Marquis' "Future Like Ours" (FLO) theory represents his main argument, whereas, Thomson uses analogies to influence the reader of her point of view. Each argument contains strengths and weaknesses, and the point of this paper is to show you that Marquis presents a more sound argument against abortion than Thomson presents for it. An in depth overview of both arguments will be

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 killing wrong is the loss of the victim’s future. In this paper, I will argue that this argument fails because aborting a fetus is not in the same moral category as killing an innocent adult human being.

“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

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 this paper, I will investigate the question: Can abortion be morally justified only when it is a matter of life or death for the mother? This is not to be confused with, “can abortion be morally justified if the mother is ill?”. That being said, the question I will discuss in this paper is, can abortion be morally justified only when it is a matter of life or death for the mother? This is an important question to be deliberated, because many people will take a position to either agree or disagree with this question; although, they may need more information about the topic to make an educated decision. In addition, this is one of the greatest controversial topics in American culture currently, and it is significant to educate people on the material before aimlessly determining if abortion can be morally justified. The question remains, what is abortion? Abortion is when a person intentionally and deliberately ends a human pregnancy. While there are many various deliberations to be addressed, the emphasis will be on, is the fetus a living being in the mother’s womb and can pregnancy resulting from rape be morally justified? The position I will take on the matter is that abortion can be morally justified only when it is a matter of life or death for the mother.

This topic brings an extreme concern to the public because it is one of the biggest controversies topics, which is an abortion. The question is whether an abortion should be performed or not and should be moral or immoral regardless of pro-life and choice of the mothers. However, the two authors, Lee and George, argue that the choice of abortion is immoral. Lee and George’s view on abortion is that a fetus is a human being at the moment of conception. Even though the baby inside her or his mother’s stomach is not fully developed, it is still a complete human being. Having an abortion is like it’s killing a human being, which they say that a fetus is innocent. Not only abortion is killed, but also called murder. Therefore, abortion is impermissible except the mother wants to protect herself from something. Lee and George give three reasons to their arguments of abortion, why they think it is wrong to end the lives of innocent fetuses and not given a fetus a chance at life. First, it’s own distinct direction. Second, it is genetically human. Third, it is a complete organism. Not only Lee and George believe that abortion is immoral, but also many people believe it. That is because abortion is not something the mother can take slightly. Otherwise, this person is considered to be murder because many people value and want to protect human life, and Lee and George are one of them. They support human life and believe abortion should be illegal. In my point of view, abortion should

Abortion is a highly contested topic among numerous individuals. Different groups of people take different approaches on their stance. Individuals decide what they think or feel is right, government officials decide whether it should be legal and how laws should work for all people, while philosophers try to decipher if it is moral or not. Philosophers have tried many approaches to figuring out this problem. Mary Anne Warren takes a progressive approach unlike Don Marquis, who has an incredibly reserved approach. The opposition in these two articles brings about a wide scope in arguments.