Why Killing An Ordinary Adult Is Morally Wrong

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.

There are many limitations valued when it comes to the right of abortion. The news media still outlines the pros and cons of anti-abortion rights in certain-states-to soon, the entire country. My perspectives on the issue of abortion have been entitled from it to never be banned among citizen’s rights. The reproduction of pregnancy has been emphasized heavily on a mother’s decision to abort their child, but the father of the child plays an active role since he considers to that particular title. Through this current issue, majority of the people against abortion do not seem to have an open mind to how much it primarily affects the decision of the mother amongst her own views of considering abortion.

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.

“Is it worse to kill someone than to let someone die?” – James Rachels. At the end of the disagreement, many philosophers say euthanasia, also known as physician-assisted suicide, is a compassionate method of death. At the other side are the opponents of euthanasia, who may consider this technique as a form of murder. In this paper, I will show that it is not important to know the distinction between killing and letting die on request which is performed by a physician. Both killing and letting die on request are similar because it is based on the controversial issue called euthanasia also known as physician-assisted suicide.

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.

The essay has been arranged in four subsections biblical, medical, legal and philosophical arguments against abortion. Exemplification techniques through the use of facts and statistics is used to emphasize the point that author is trying to make. The author uses many logos techniques very effectively, often to make a point about the fetus being alive and being able to feel pain even at very early stages of life, so should not be destroyed. An example of this is seen in the line "If heartbeat was used to define life, then nearly all abortions would be outlawed" the deductive reasoning used makes conclusions about the fact that life exist even as a fetus and thus abortion is actually death of the fetus.

Marquis’ argument puts forward the claim that most deliberate abortions are immoral, and this is because the loss of one’s future “inflicts…the greatest possible [loss] on the victim” (SG 168). This is because the deprivation of one’s future reduces the inherent value of any possible future pleasure, experiences and activities (SG 169). This account addresses flaws associated

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.

In Marquis’s Why Abortion is Immoral, Marquis presents his argument against abortion. The basic idea behind the argument is that, abortion is seriously morally wrong because it is the act of killing a human being with the right to live life. Additionally, abortion is seriously morally wrong in Marquis’s claim because it deprives a being of its future – a future that has the potential to be as worthy and as great as that of an human being – while he explains that the wrongfulness of murdering a fetus is superior to any excuse with a few exceptions. My aim in this paper is to show that the argument fails. In section I, I present the argument and explain the motive, reasoning, and purpose behind the various premises of Marquis. In section II, I present my further evaluation and critique of Marquis’s argument. Lastly, in section III, I will address the several objections that may be brought upon against my thoughts and criticisms.

According to Don Marquis in his essay, “Why Abortion is Immoral,” killing is wrong because it is morally impermissible to cause the victim to be “deprived of all of the value of [his] future” (Marquis, 55). Marquis states that “abortion is prima facie wrong” (Marquis, 57) because killing a fetus deprives it of a valuable future like ours. Marquis’ assessment of killing and his claim that abortion is morally impermissible are not plausible under his argument.

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).

Abortion is one of the most disputable issues discussed all over the world today. Several decades ago abortion was considered only a social issue, but now situation has changed and it has also a political and ethical issue attached to it as well. Arguments against pro- choice are typically biased; overlook the fact that the legalization of it benefits the health of women, and deny women the right to do what they want with their bodies. Thus, the main aim of this paper is to discuss the pro-choice view on abortion while analyzing the opinions of other authors in this paper.

Ethics can be defined as a set of principles which dictate what is considered as morally ‘good’ and ‘bad’. Abortion is defined as the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy through a medical procedure which results in the death of a fetus. Within ethics, there are many arguments as to whether abortion should be permitted in society as many regard it as an act of murder and others simply see it as a decision that should be given to the mother only. The issue of abortion remains to be one of the most controversial topics in society, which causes an inevitable clash of opinion. Through the exploration of philosophical principles, we are able to evaluate the origins of such opinions. In the same way, utilitarianism equates wrongness or blameworthiness of an action with its resultant pain or unhappiness. The central principle of utilitarianism expresses the belief that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. Since utilitarianism differentiates ethical and unethical actions on the basis of the outcomes of those actions, it falls into the consequentialist class. With this belief, utilitarianism challenged traditional views that abortion was an 'evil ' act, arguing instead that the end justifies the means. In contrast, the deontologist would consider the intent of the person seeking an abortion in evaluating its ethical standing. In addition to this, postmodernism argues that, since there is

. Shabad said in 1900 that an abortion “is a social evil”. At the same time he was among the first who raise a question about “the right of a mother to manage her own body”, the acknowledgement of which in the 20th century will turn to fundamental principle of ideology of reproductive rights of a man. It can be said that T. Shabad is a father of liberal approach to the artificial abortion, having spoken also against a Catholic principle: “Eternal life of a child is more valuable than a temporary life of a mother” . T. Shabad is based on the principle of Hebrew physician and theologist Maimonides: “there is no reason to have mercy to the murderer”, which is understood as the permission to the killing of a child in a mother’s womb, that is committed