This analogy however, is only applicable in the case of a pregnancy due to rape and is otherwise a disanalogy. Secondly, I will present Don Marquis’ “future likes ours” argument. Marquis argues that abortion deprives a foetus of future experiences is akin to a pre-mature human being’s death. For Marquis, abortion is just as wrong as murdering a human being. Marquis states that “The future of a standard foetus includes a set of experiences, projects, activities, and such which are identical with the futures of adult human beings and are identical with the futures of young children.” Marquis further adds that “it is wrong to kill human beings after the time of birth is a reason that also applies to foetuses, it follows that abortion is prima facie morally wrong.” Marquis remarks that killing deprives humans and foetuses the value of their future.
The unborn child deserves the rights that are given to all living humans. The problem with today’s laws on abortion is that they make it too easy for a woman to get an abortion. The law is crazy to me because if you look at some murder cases, the unborn child is considered a person. If someone murders a pregnant woman, they will most likely be charged with two murders as we have seen in the Manson family murders. It shouldn’t matter how far along the pregnancy is for someone to tell if the baby is a “human”.
Abortion: Summary Digest Some believe the sanctity of life is naturally determined by an inherent moral code, while others believe the value of life should be determined by personal choice. Despite the differences, there is no bigger quarrel amongst these views than the issue of abortion. The “pro-choice” perspective believes that any attempt at prohibiting abortion infringes on their natural rights. “Pro-life” advocates claim that there is not a fine line between the act of killing and abortion. In fact, they believe it is simply premeditated murder.
Next they will argue that you have a right to control your family size, but in doing so by abortion. They do not recognize that by having an abortion you are killing a living being
Here we are in this so-called world of freedom but when we exercise that freedom, we become ridiculed for making a choice. I would rather end a pregnancy instead of bringing a child into a world that they are forced to struggle and go without ; to make a child suffer is a far worse act then dissolving the birth of an unborn/ undeveloped fetus. In Roe v. Wade, a landmark Supreme Court decision in 1973, stated that a woman and her doctor may freely decide to abort a pregnancy during the first trimester, state governments can restrict abortion access after the first trimester with laws intended to protect the woman's health, and abortion after fetal viability must be available if the woman's health or life are at risk. Abortion was allowed in the United States of America
Reviewing this article helped me understand when abortion should be an option. No women should have to give birth to a child from the man that sexually abused her. In the book, pro-life and pro-choice opinions are heard and help predict the future with abortion. The opinions did not change my views on abortion but informed me of what it might do in the future. The newspaper article is about a bill that will imprison anyone who kills a fetus that has a heartbeat.
Since the United States does not have an official religious code to interpret right from wrong, we have to depend on our criminal laws. If the laws are not strict enough, as the Death Penalty is, it is too enticing for our criminals. Therefore making it easier for criminals to kill. Harsh, severe laws provide an important measure of society's values and morals. How can the government be "soft on crime"" How can they let others kill innocent people?
The ones who throw the bible at the penalty forget to read certain portions. “The murderer shall surely be put to death” (Numbers 35:16-18) this bible excerpt counters the argument. Abstracting the death penalty and saying it is wrong for the government to take ones life is the wrong way to approach the system. If each case was reviewed in the sense that the victim was a loved one, giving the criminal free room and board would be a harder choice. A claim that human life’s value is diminished when someone is executed is a bold claim.
The moral argument is that scientists are killing fetuses to improve the medical condition of living patients. I think that this argument is completely absurd. I think that if a person wants to donate an embryo for this type of research, it should be left up to them. My way of thinking on this issue is very nonconsequentialist which insist that consequences, effects or outcomes are irrelevant: morality is about doing what is right as a matter of principle, regardless of consequences. That means you do the right thing no matter what happens (Thiroux).
If you look at the constitution, it says people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If you have an abortion, you are taking those rights from what would be a child. If you kill him/her, you take away his/her right to life. By aborting the baby, you take away his/her liberty. And, how can it pursue happiness if it isn’t alive to do so?