Pro-life supporters, on the other hand, believe that the unborn child has the right to life, and that abortion unlawfully takes away that right. If we take away the woman’s right to chose, will we begin limiting her other rights also? Or, if we keep abortion legal, are we devaluing human life? There is no easy answer to these questions. Both sides present strong, logical arguments.
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.
If they are going to make that decision to have sex, they are making the decision to accept the consequences of that choice. When an embryo is fertilized it is alive and forming into a baby, therefore, what right do we have to destroy that if we were irresponsible? And, even if you didn’t want that infant you created because of irresponsible actions, there is still the option of adoption or birth control. Even the Constitution can back up pro-life views of abortion. If you look at the constitution, it says people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
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.
More precisely, she argues for the conclusion that abortion is sometimes permissible; she grants that there are scenarios in which obtaining an abortion would be immoral. What is especially novel is the manner in which Thomson constructs her argument. She begins the essay by pointing out that the debate over abortion seems to many people to hinge on whether or not the fetus is a person. Most feel that if we could only determine the answer to that puzzle, the implications for abortion would be clear; namely, that if fetuses are persons then abortions must be impermissible, and that if fetuses are not persons then abortions must be permissible. Thomson, though, thinks that reasoning in this way is misguided, or at very best is incomplete.
John Noonan and Mary Ann Warren believe the most fundamental question involved in the long history of abortion is. How do you determine the humanity of a being? They both use their views on the answer to argue their positions on abortion. Jane English differs from many pro- and anti-abortion advocates in insisting that the central question is not whether the fetus is a person. She argues that even if the fetus is a person, it doesn't simply follow that abortion is wrong.
These people are referred to as “pro-life advocates”. They believe in the life of the baby over the woman’s right to choose. There are groups such as Human Life International (HLI), The Christian Coalition, and many others support the right of the human life. Their main argument is that one is murdering an unsuspected life. They have several other reasons why they do not support abortions.
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 Prolife view will fight for the government to preserve and protect every human life. With each view there is strong debate over the law and which one is right, and which is wrong. The debate is the hottest covering the topic of abortions, and dealings with women’s bodies. The Pro-life view stands in solidarity with the unborn child,
So why do we not protect them the same way we protect ourselves? A Human Life Amendment added to the constitution to prohibit and outlaw abortion procedures is the most efficient way to correct this problem. Abortion is a cruel procedure that contradicts fetal laws, that viciously takes away and denies a fetus of personhood and life, and is dangerous to the mother and can become very costly. If a pregnant woman was to get murdered, she, and most likely