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
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.
The final decision could be influenced by whether Sam and Marion would regard abortion as ethically acceptable if the baby were found to carry the Huntington's gene. Some people take a principled position that the unborn child has a right to life and that the parents are ethically wrong to choose abortion. Others take a utilitarian approach and consider that although abortion is always bad there are some
He claims that abortion advocates find a slim margin to dictate when a fetus becomes a human. This criteria for pro-choice believers is “…only persons have the right to life seems evident enough. Furthermore, because fetuses are neither rational nor possess the capacity to communicate in complex ways nor posses a concept of self that continues through time, no fetus is a person.”(206,II,B) He challenges this concept by comparing its requirements to that of an infant, or a mentally challenged individual. Marquis then presents the reoccurring argument of his “FLO”
One of the most ethical controversial issues being debated now in United States is whether late- term abortion should be banned or not. Most people argued that it is proper to ban late-term abortion. They believe that it is un-ethical and a murder of an unborn child not a right of freedom of choice. It is an immoral act and violates the social and religious norms. On the other hand some people argued that late-term abortion should not be banned because it is necessary to terminate a fetus when the life of the woman is in danger as a result of complicated pregnancy; or when pregnancy result from incest or rape and the woman may be late in finding out that she is pregnant.
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.
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.
People are not merely a means to an end, but ends themselves. A woman treated as an incubator of a fetus by the law is simply a means to an end, therefore disregarded as a person. There are many misconceptions about abortion. These misconceptions can potentially lead to the loss of women's individual and necessary rights to choose for themselves whether or not they want to bear a child. Most of these common misconceptions can not only be easily identified, but also utterly refuted.
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
Many people believe it is a perfectly ethical way to assist in infertility and to help women who desire to get pregnant. Others would say, for example, that it is wrong to take God’s work into your own hands and conceive a child through different means than He intended. There are also numerous things that could sway someone either way. For example, someone who has a friend that is infertile might be more biased to approving of artificial insemination, as opposed to someone who does not. Though there are faults with both sides, everybody has their own reasons for supporting or not supporting artificial insemination.