Short Paper on A Defense of Abortion by J. J. Thomson In the article A Defense of Abortion, Judith Jarvis Thomson exposes the idea that fetuses are considered persons from the moment of conception and, therefore, they have the right to life. However, Thomson argues that abortion under certain circumstances can be morally permissible. Based on these ideas Thompson implemented thought experiments such as the analogies of the violinist and the “drifting seeds”, which doesn’t really give an adequate explanation for why abortion is sometimes permissible. Thus, based on my understanding of these analogies I believe that Thomson’s arguments are not convincing and, therefore, abortion should not be permissible. Thomson explains that the fetus is a person who has the right to life.
Despite Natural Law forbidding abortion, there is a doctrine of double effect that can be implemented. If the mother’s life is threatened as a result of the pregnancy, for instance during an ectopic pregnancy, then the destruction of the fallopian tube would be acceptable. Here, the primary aim is not the terminate the pregnancy but to save the mother’s life. The secondary effect is that the embryo is destroyed. Here, abortion would be permissible even by Natural law followers, who believe in the sanctity of life.
She argues that even if the fetus is a person, it doesn't simply follow that abortion is wrong. But she goes on to argue that even if the fetus is not a person, it doesn't follow that abortion is simply acceptable in all circumstances. She points out a characteristic feature of the abortion debate: foes of abortion point to supposed sufficient conditions of personhood that fetuses have; advocates of abortion rights point to supposed necessary conditions of personhood that fetuses lack. "These both presuppose that the concept of a person can be captured in a strait jacket of necessary and sufficient conditions." English claims, “person” is a cluster concept.
If we are sincerely committed to equality then the answer must be no. Demanding that she have the surgery would entail us to say that you have to give up your body to your unborn child. It is unacceptable to force a pregnant woman to undergo treatment. It is her fundamental right of freedom of choice and control over her own body and life. In fact if we force this woman to have the surgery it could compromise the sanctity of a woman’s body.
Abortion- A Woman’s Divine Right Tameka A. Severson SOC 120 Introduction to Ethics & Social Responsibility Instructor: Theodore Framan April 16, 2012 The topic of abortion is one of the most controversial of our times. The fight between pro-life and pro-choice supporters has been long and brutal. This is because individuals can be a bit “close minded” and refuse to view any other beliefs or ideas other than their own. Although I support the act of abortion, when it all boils down, it is a right and the circumstance at hand really depends on the particular individual. Abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability.
Thomson, though, thinks that reasoning in this way is misguided, or at very best is incomplete. In light of this, she begins by conceding the issue of personhood to her opponent; she assumes, for purposes of argumentation, that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. She attempts to show that even if this concession is made, abortion is morally permissible in many
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.
According to Warren, “the moral community," decide if a fetus can become part of the moral community. The mother, being an actual person, overrides the rights of a potential person, the fetus. Warren continues to state that a woman, who wants to have an abortion and is not permitted to, is considered unconstitutional because her rights of freedom are being taken away. In Paul Wilkes “The Moral Dilemma of Abortion,” Wilkes rejects the claim that the embryo has a human soul as soon as conception occurs. Wilkes takes this stand and cites from modern embryology that conception doesn’t occur in an instance, but it takes place over a few days; while fertilization takes place in a matter of twenty-four hours.
The Pro-abortionist focused only on a women’s right to choose and all the social problems inherent in an unwanted child, forgetting that the unborn child is a precious thing that has the right to life and deserves the full protection under the moral and ethics law. The bottom line is our individual rights to freedom, and the pursuit of happiness should not supersede the authority of God nor should it supplement the moral absolutes from which they are derived. The Supreme Court decision in January 1973, of Roe vs. Wade decided that there should not be any legislation