By examining the views on abortion of Marry Anne Warren, this paper will argue that abortion is morally permissible on the grounds that early fetuses, though they are genetically human, are not persons (members of the moral community). In this paper I will introduce Warren’s argument on why abortion is morally permissible followed by a counter argument by Don Marquis. Furthermore, this paper will analyze why Warren’s argument is more persuasive than the counter argument offered by Marquis followed by criticisms of the analysis. Lastly, I will discuss why the objections to the analysis are unconvincing. Warren beings her argument by acknowledging that abortion “…usually entails the death of a fetus.
Despite the fact that both she and the fetus has the equal right to life, opponents of abortion would still consider it wrong to preform an abortion with reasons ranging from killing an innocent person is always wrong and is murder to one must always prefer letting a person die to killing a person. J.J. Thomson would respond to say that these reasons are all false if we consider that the mother is only preforming an abortion in order to save her own life and not for personal interests. Hence abortion should be considered morally permissible in such situations when the life of the mother is threatened by the fetus. In order to determine whether abortion is permissible in cases where the mother’s life is not in immediate danger, we should analyse whether the fetus truly has the right to live. Take for example, rape.
She also claims that the antiabortionists are fighting against the rights of women and the ability of free choice. McElroy’s argument for abortion wasn’t convincing and most of the claims presented needed more support. I believe that abortion should be illegal unless in some special cases such as rape and situations where the mother’s health can be affect by the pregnancy. The main issue of abortion is the fetus’ life. It all comes down to when it become a human.
Abortion is a good example of that. If a woman does not believe in a higher power, what justifies her right to an abortion? With the theory of ethical relativism, it is up to the mother whether she believes that the abortion is morally right or wrong, not society’s morals. Some might ask how a woman could possibly feel that an abortion is a just decision. In cases where the woman is unable to care for the child either; financially, emotionally, or mentally, she may feel that the abortion is morally acceptable.
The Dilemma An ethical dilemma is a situation in which no solution is entirely satisfactory to either party (Foundations of nursing care, 2004). The historical 1973 Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade ruled in favor of the plaintiff, considering abortion an essential right granted to women under the Constitution of the United States (McBride, 2006). Jane Roe was a woman that was pregnant who wanted to obtain an abortion. She was prosecuted on behalf of women in a similar situation that wanted to avoid the implementation of Texas laws banning all abortions except those deemed necessary to save the life of the mother. The court decided in her favor that a woman’s right to abortion fell within the right to privacy, and was protected by the fourteenth amendment (McBride, 2006).
General Purpose: To persuade Specific Purpose: To persuade my audience to think twice before making the decision to take the life of an unborn child. Central Idea: Although convenient, abortions are cruel and inhumane alternatives to pregnancy. Introduction Abortion is one of the most controversial and important topics of our generation. The number of people that choose to have an abortion is a growing problem but it could be improved through awareness. I know that no one wants to have an unplanned pregnancy but what if one day you found yourself in that very situation.
Many of the arguments made by the pro-life team take a moral, ethical, or religious standpoint in their persuasion of others. In order for us to gain a more objective look at the debate with real-world pros and cons, the moral, ethical, and/or religious arguments will not be covered. Abortion has been a topic of controversy in America for almost two hundred years. The earliest known instance of conflict occurred in 1821 when Connecticut outlawed the selling of poisons used to induce abortion in women (Abortion ProCon.org). In 1845, New York began the trend of slapping legal consequences for women who have abortions.
Pro-life is the opposing argument to pro-choice, and that abortions should be made illegal like in Northern Ireland unless the mother’s life is at serious risk. Many Religions have the traditional view that abortion is a sin. It is argued that if a teenager becomes pregnant and has an abortion they may come to regret this in later life, because at the time they were only a minor. The argument for Pro-life is a choice by people who feel that it is wrong to take a man life, weather that human has been born or not is irrelevant. Abortion is seen as no different to murder.
Moreover, he attempts to show validity that the aborting of a fetus can, with the exception of rare circumstances of rape or serious medical condition, be represented as an equivalent serious moral wrong. Marquis further notes that laws prohibiting abortion in the U.S. did not exist until the 19th century. In his continuation of outlining premises, he avers that Anti-abortionist have the outlook that fetuses are people and abortion equates to murder. And, helping to support his claim he explains the existence and division of two mutually exclusive and contradictory groups. This dichotomy of the one and the many presents itself in the premises of the two opponents as follows: Anti-abortionist has the outlook that fetuses are people, and abortion equates to murder.
In A Defense of Abortion, Judith Thomson defends the permissibility of abortion by appealing to several thought experiments, the most prevalent of which is the famous violinist thought experiment. Through the portrayal of this specific experiment, Thomson is best able to show why abortion is sometimes morally permissible. Thomson starts off by challenging the typical anti-abortion argument, which is essentially two assertions followed by the conclusion that the fetus may not be killed. Furthermore, Thomson makes it clear that the typical anti-abortion argument cannot justify the idea that all abortion is morally impermissible. In effect, all Thomson has to do to show that having an abortion is sometimes morally permissible is to prove the anti-abortion argument to be, either in part or whole, flawed or ineffectual.