Why Abortion Is Permissible? Essay

When touching the subject of abortion, one must consider that there are two sides battling for control. That is right, abortion has literally turned into a war zone where even the unlikely of individuals do the unthinkable. Each side has their motives and methods for contradicting the other. For instance, there are cases and events that support both sides of this issue.

Ethical justification of abortion is a controversial subject consisting of numerous significant theories that have been presented based on studies and researches. Basically, abortion refers to termination of pregnancy through removal of the undeveloped fetus. Seemingly, the act is highly condemned by majority sociologists and health practitioners due to violation of humanitarian ethics and morals. However, this particular perspective is orientated by the normative ethics system entailing utilitarianism versus deontology. Alternatively, this excerpt shall focus on analyzing the social altercations of abortion based on views and opinions presented by two influential individuals, namely Marquis and Steinbock. By identifying the main arguments and key elements apparent in the two arguments, the study is likely to derive rational insight concerning moral permissibility of abortion.

In On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion, Mary Anne Warren discusses a few arguments against abortion, namely bringing into play whether the fetus is actually a person, or “not a member of the moral community”. She

In this paper I will discus and examine Judith Jarvis Thomson’s view upon abortion as stated in her argument “A Defense of Abortion”. I will explain her view on the issue and look deeper into her supporting arguments she included in her essay. I will also explain whether I agree with her statements. I would also discuss whether the person can agree with my statements and reason why having an abortion make you in moral.

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.

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

Thompson’s first account of the right to life follows a scenario where a woman is pregnant but will die if she carries the baby to term. Thompson makes it clear that for the sake of argument she will consider a fetus a human from the point of conception, therefore giving the fetus a right to life equivalent to that of the mother. In the scenario given, however, Thompson argues that the mother is logically able to make an act of self-defence in order to save herself, and since both her and the baby are innocent, bystanders may not intervene to stop the killing of the fetus. Thompson reasons that perhaps the extreme view of abortion may be reduced to state that abortion is permissible to save the mother’s life, but the mother must perform the abortion on herself in order for it to count as an act of self-defence. However, by leveraging the coat analogy, Thompson proves that it is logically

In this argument it has been established then, that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. Thompson now introduces her “violinist analogy.” This is a key term in her argument. In this analogy she asks the reader to imagine you wake one morning and find yourself in bed with an unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and you alone have the right blood type to save him. You have been kidnapped in the middle of the night, and the violinist’s circulatory system is now plugged into yours. The director of the Hospital is now telling you “Sorry, the Society of Music Lovers did this to you – we would never have permitted it if we had known.” To get unplugged from the violinist will kill him, but in nine months he will be totally recovered from his ailment and you can be safely unplugged from one another. Thompson then asks, “Is it a moral responsibility for the kidnapped person to agree to this situation?” This situation she has concocted is comparable to that of a woman being raped. Pro – lifers say every person has a right to life and that right to life is stronger than the mothers right to decide what happens in her body. Thompson then goes on to say that instead of being plugged to the violinist’s body for nine months – its changed to your whole life. According to the pro –life

In Thomson’s “A Defense of Abortion,” she states that the mother’s right to life can be greater than that of the fetus. I disagree with this premise because the fetus has a right to life, and it is the mother’s natural responsibility, or obligation, to take care of her child. This issue is very relevant in modern society and occurs on a daily basis, so I am inclined to view my objection (as well as Thomson’s argument) as important influences on others’ current positions. In this paper, I will argue that there is not a defense of abortion due to the fact that conception of a fetus, or child, is natural and is an obligation to be taken care of. A child conceived is a natural circumstance or occurrence.

In A Defense of Abortion, Judith Thomson’s statement against abortion constructs on her agreement that fetus is a human being, for the sake of argument, therefore has the right to life. She shows that the basic argument against abortion is inadequate. The basic argument of abortion goes: the first premise is that every person has right to life; the second premise is that the fetus is a human being; the conclusion is that the abortion is impermissible. Thomson found this statement invalid, because the conclusion does not actually follow from the premises. She demonstrates that there is a suppressed premise in this argument. Her reconstruction of the argument goes: 1) every person has right to life; 2) the fetus is a human being; 3) the fetus’s right to life is stronger than the mother’s right to determine what happens in and to her own body; 4) therefore the abortion is impermissible.

Yet, it is your duty to look after your baby. As Kant suggests, if you

Abortion is a serious topic that people have been debating about for years. Everywhere you turn the topic of abortion presents itself, on TV, in the newspapers, in books and magazines. It already has, and will continue to cause, controversy for years to come. As long as abortion remains legal, pro-life advocates will continue to protest what they believe to be these horrible acts of murder.

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.

Throughout the previous thirty-eight years ago since the U.S Supreme Court legalized abortion as a medical procedure, the topic of abortion has spurned several heated debates both socially and politically. In such a heightened contemporary context, it would be rather appropriate to consider the moral application of Immanuel Kant’s philosophy, one of the greatest minds in the eighteenth centuries, to the enduring morality debate over abortion. Setting the discussion regarding the morality and immorality of abortion within the Kantian ethics framework provides one with a view that transition from the frequently inflammatory pro-choice and anti-abortion discussion points and towards a deep lucid, philosophical argument of such a controversial topic.

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.