...The argument on whether abortion is morally permissible has been considered for years. Most philosophers incline to accept moral principle that it is always prima facie seriously wrong to end the life of a person in normal circumstances. The personhood of an embryo and foetus has somehow invoked another controversial issue on whether they are kind of beings, or persons, that it is seriously wrong, for any sake, to end their life. Both the anti-abortionist side and pro-choicers side can only give equally vague boundary on claiming that foetus is a person, or not so. However, as we will find out later in this essay, the problem of whether a foetus is a person, or whether a foetus has serious right to life, does not significantly affect the consideration of abortion under Thomson’s account. The argument of the personhood of foetus will just stay at a standoff if there is no clear definition or lists for what characteristics make a thing a person. When we draw line to represent the development of a human being from the state of conception to the point that a baby is born, it will be arbitrary to choose a point which the thing inside a mother is a person after that point and not a person before that point. Moreover, the opposite of abortion may suggest that a foetus, even at the moment of conception, is a person because of their potential future, meanwhile, the supporters of abortion may insist that a foetus has not yet become a person because it lacks of some characteristics that...
Words: 2665 - Pages: 11
...Kyle Warner 3/23/16 In China there are laws that only allow parents to have one child. Most hope to have a male to work to support the family, and carry on the family’s name. 99 percent of abortions in China are when the fetus is a female. Sex selection abortions are not morally permissible. The theory of Natural Law states that “to act morally, you must act naturally.” Chinese parents aborting female fetuses are not acceptable on utilitarian grounds. There are many ways of letting go of an unwanted child, such as adoption. The theory of Natural Law states that “to act morally, you must act naturally.” This statement alone proves that it is not morally permissible. Abortions are not natural; they are done by humans by choice when they do not want what they created. Everything has a place and purpose in nature. No matter if someone is a male or female, they are given a specific role by god, and it is morally wrong to take that away. The theory also states that everything in nature follows a rational order, meaning that once you change the ratio of men to woman the rational order has been changed. The argument that some Chinese parents can make is that it is good on utilitarian grounds. This is not true due to the fact that if they cannot afford to raise a daughter they should not have a child during that time. The parents should wait until they are stable enough to raise a child whether or not it is a son or a daughter. Females can do anything that a male can do, so if...
Words: 464 - Pages: 2
...Judith Thompson presents an interesting slant on the moral permissibility of abortion in that she assumes the fetus is a person from conception, therefore having the right to life. However, the fetus’ right to life does not suggest that it has the right to unlimited means to ensure its survival. An abortion is still permissible if the mother does not grant fetus the right to use her body. Thompson gives several analogies of scenarios in which abortions are morally permissible, in which the right for mother to have an abortion outweighs the fetus’ right to use the mother’s body. In the Jane scenario she would argue that it is ultimately morally impermissible for her to obtain an abortion because the fetus is given the right to use the mother’s body. Jane’s pregnancy can be thought of as an accident, because she and her husband almost always faithfully use condoms to prevent accidental conception. Therefore she did not intend to carry the fetus. Thompson states that if the mother did not intend to conceive, and attempted to follow the proper safeguards, then she does not grant the fetus the use of her body. Some may view Jane’s one instance of not using a condom as culpable because she should understand the risk of pregnancy during unprotected sex, and therefore, she is responsible for the fetus’ existence. Thompson states that it is preposterous to argue that the conception of a fetus due to a misjudgment such as forgetting a condom should be seen as an invitation for the fetus...
Words: 2377 - Pages: 10
...In his article “Abortion and Infanticide”, Michael Tooley offers an extreme, pro-choice argument that abortion is morally permissible at any time. According to Tooley, a fetus lacks a right to life throughout an entire pregnancy. In addition, after birth there is a period of time in which an infant lacks a right to life as well. Infanticide is morally permissible if nobody wants to raise the infant who has recently been born. Tooley believes that it is a requirement that we must desire life in order to have a right to live. He offers only a few exceptions, including: indoctrination, suicidal depression, and temporary unconsciousness. Tooley supports his argument with various premises, but ultimately backs his case with the fact that self-consciousness is necessary to having the right to life. Tooley argues that there is a strong connection between the rights that we have as individuals and the desires we possess. Simply stated, rights secure for individuals the things that they desire. For example, as individuals we desire life, liberty and happiness. Our very own Declaration of Independence states that we have “a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” There can’t be a more clear-cut example to demonstrate Tooley’s connection between rights and desires. If an individual desires something, then as other individuals we have an obligation not to deprive them of it. However, only those who have experiences and other mental states are capable of having desires...
Words: 639 - Pages: 3
...A Regrettably Inadequate Defence of Abortion This essay shall examine and critique Judith Jarvis Thomson’s analogy of the sickly violinist, as it relates to the moral permissibility of abortion. I shall conclude that the analogy is ultimately too dissimilar from a general case of abortion to be an accurate representation of the mother-foetus relationship. I will further conclude that at best the analogy only provides justification for abortion in cases of rape, and when a developing foetus becomes a threat to the mother’s life. The Impermissibility Argument Much of the debate concerning the permissibility of abortion surrounds the notion of ‘personhood’, specifically whether a developing foetus qualifies as such a being. Opponents of abortion expend much energy arguing for the conferring of personhood to the moment of conception, whilst the proponents argue this would be a misclassification. One would not call a pinecone a pine tree; to label a foetus as a person is similarly inappropriate (Thomson: Page 47). Thomson argues this tact distracts from the primary concern of abortion, for even if one grants that a foetus is a person, one’s work is still ahead of them to argue against the permissibility of abortion (Thomson: Page 48). The argument runs as follows: P1: As a person, the foetus has the right to life. P2: As a person, the woman has the right of autonomy concerning her own body. P3: The right to life is more important than the right to autonomy over one’s...
Words: 2794 - Pages: 12
...The Black and White of Abortion Abortion is arguably the most controversial issue that exists today. Abortion is a religious matter, questioning the humanity of a fetus and if one has the right to kill it. This issue also causes disagreement between men and women, and whether women have the right to bodily autonomy. Furthermore, abortion questions which right is stronger, the right to bodily autonomy or the right to life. Mary Anne Warren and Judith Jarvis Thomson have similar stances on the issue, although both claim to be pro-choice. Thomson, through the famous violinist example, argues women have the right to bodily autonomy, which is stronger than a fetus’s right to life. Warren, on the other hand, states fetuses are not persons because they do not attribute the five-personhood traits. In this paper I will agree and disagree with both philosophers, to a certain extent. Two central issues surround abortion. First, is it permissible to kill a potential human being? Most Christians believe that at the moment of conception, a human life is created. Other people believe a fetus is not a person until after the period of time when it becomes illegal to have an abortion, typically after five months. Judith Jarvis Thomson is pro-choice. She believes the woman’s right to bodily autonomy is stronger than a fetus’s right to life, and proves so through the famous violinist example. She believes a person does not have a moral obligation to stay connected to the famous violinist...
Words: 1160 - Pages: 5
... Introduction to ethics. I. II. To what extent is reasoning possible in ethics? One assumption: ethics is subjective A. If subjective then no disagree: Paul I like my coffee sweetened, Helen unsweetened: no disagreement B. If Paul “drs should sometimes assist their patient’s death, Helen: No (then real disagreement) C. There is a point here about disagreement A characteristic of ethics and ethical argumentation consistency: A. It is always wrong to kill a human being B. Abortion is not always wrong C. I am committed to holding that abortion isn’t always the killing of a human being a. This sets a limit on the subjectivity of ethics b. Another such limit: factual accuracy c. One can enjoy a taste without knowing what it is d. In ethics we have to understand the facts of the matter: patient’s prognosis, wishes etc in regards to resuscitation (2) Ethical relativism A. Similarity to subjectivism: B. Ethics depends upon a group, a culture etc. a. Darius: eat or burn one’s dead b. Herodotus each culture...
Words: 10578 - Pages: 43
...Ethical Relativism 1. Ethical Relativism: In this lecture, we will discuss a moral theory called ethical relativism (sometimes called “cultural relativism”). Ethical Relativism: The view that what is morally right or wrong is dependent upon what one’s culture believes is right or wrong. In short, if your society or culture BELIEVES that some action is morally wrong, then it IS morally wrong for everyone within that society. Businesspeople often claim something similar. They say, for instance, that businesses operate under their own system of morality. What is deemed to be right by some business IS right for that business. This makes morality relative. For instance, if one society says cannibalism is morally wrong, while another says it is morally permissible, then the fact of whether or not cannibalism is morally wrong will just be a relative one—namely, whether or not it is wrong for someone will just depend upon which society they are in. We will now ask the question: Does some action become right or wrong just because one’s society, or employer, SAYS it is right or wrong? Or rather, is it the case that there are some moral standards that apply to ALL businesses and societies, regardless of whether or not those societies believe in those standards? 2. The Argument From Disagreement: Why believe that morality is relative? Relativists often say that widespread moral disagreement proves that their view is true. They say: 1. Different people have different beliefs...
Words: 2510 - Pages: 11
...Moral Permissibility of Abortion One question of great importance in today’s world deals with the moral permissibility of abortion. Traditional thought teaches that only in very rare occasions should it be permitted. Many modern thinkers tend to leave it up to the decision of the woman, who is under no responsibility to the fetus because it is not a fully developed person. The question of the moral permissibility of abortion, however, draws out a plethora of other questions such as: can a fetus be considered a human being? If so, when does it become a human being? Does a fetus have the same rights as a person? Is a woman required to sacrifice her health, interests, and commitments to sustain the fetus? In this essay, I will review the articles of Margaret Little and Judith Thomson to expose flaws in their arguments in behalf of abortion, and provide reasons that reject its permissibility. Thomson’s argument is known as the “Bodily Rights Argument,” which utilizes the analogy of the unconscious violinist to show that a pregnant mother, who did not chose to be in that situation, has no obligation to care for the life of the fetus against her will. This analogy tells of a person who is kidnapped and, upon waking, finds herself attached to medical equipment and lying next to a famous violinist. The violinist’s kidneys have failed him and aren’t able to remove toxins from his body, so they needed her, the one person with the right type of blood, to save the violinist. The doctor...
Words: 1147 - Pages: 5
...Is Abortion Immoral? Question 1: Imagine two philosophers sitting on a bench at the county morgue. They are looking at the bodies being brought in and three in particular interest them. One is a woman who was six months pregnant due to rape and died from the pregnancy complication. She wanted to have an abortion but it (abortion) was illegal under all circumstances in her state. One is the body of a woman who died after attempting to give herself an abortion with a coat hanger. She was a poor woman who lives in the slums; she had no money to take care of the child and no way to feed her living children if she lost her work from the pregnancy. Another body is that of a one-month-old fetus that was aborted once the mother found out that it was going to be a girl. She has just had one child and wanted to wait for a couple of years to have another. While looking at these bodies the philosophers begin to discuss the question: “Is abortion immoral”? How would the discussion proceed if the two philosophers were: 1) You and Judith Thomson? 2) You ad Sidney Callahan? 3) Which position (s) do you find morally compelling and why? In this scenario, the two philosophers are sitting on a bench at the county morgue. They are looking at the bodies that died involving abortion’s issues. I will call case A – a woman who was six months pregnant due to rape and died from the pregnancy complication because abortion was illegal in her state. Case B is the poor...
Words: 4599 - Pages: 19
...immorality of abortion. What primarily makes killing wrong is neither its effect on the murderer nor its effect on the victim’s friends and relatives, but its effect on the victim. The loss of one’s life is one of the greatest losses one can suffer. The loss of one’s life deprives one of all the experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments which would otherwise have constituted one’s future. Therefore, killing someone is wrong, primarily because the killing inflicts (one of) the greatest possible losses on the victim. This is one of the most hotly contested topics in today’s society. People adopt different viewpoints on this which include: • Abortion is wrong whatever the reasons • Abortion is permissible if the woman’s life is at risk • Abortion is acceptable for a variety of reasons Your opinion on whether abortion is acceptable or not very much depends upon your set of values. If you feel that it is a woman’s right to choose then you are likely to favor the ‘pro-choice’ stance. But if you argue that the fetus has rights and should be treated the same as any other human being then you will adopt the ‘pro-life’ stance. Opponents of abortion cite several reasons for their opposition which include the killing of an innocent human being, the fetus’s right to life, the responsibility of the woman towards the fetus and respect for all forms of life. There are people who are against abortion on principle but do recognize that there are situations in which abortion may be...
Words: 1666 - Pages: 7
...do. Second, people do things based on whether it is moral rather than on any purposes. Kant would believe that an abortion is morally incorrect because it is not right to kill a person and it is considered as a murder under any circumstances. In other words, no matter what is the situation that the pregnant women encounters, it is always not morally correct to have an abortion to the fetus. Here in Sandel’s video “Mind Your Motive” and “The Supreme Principle of Morality,” this American political philosopher who teaches at Harvard University as a professor points out that Kant thinks any human actions should have certain moral worth instead of doing the right thing for the immoral reason. On behalf of this view, an abortion does not have any moral worth because it is considered by Kant as a murder to another person no matter what are those reasons for the pregnancy. Also, in Kant’s view, he believes that a fetus is a human person because it has a soul (Kutlucan, 2009) which emphasizes the reason why he thinks that an abortion is not permissible. For the purpose of doing an action, Kant believes that the moral worth of an action is neither the expectation for it nor in any principle which requires to borrow its motive from this expectation (Kant, 1785). Therefore, even if the pregnant woman was raped and she cannot afford to raise this child, she cannot have an abortion in terms of Kant’s perspective on the moral worth of an action. This fact brings us to the next philosopher, Jeremy...
Words: 310 - Pages: 2
...Abortions: Morally Acceptable or Not? The issue of abortion is one of the most sensitive and controversial issues faced by modern societies. This issue leads to topics of whether abortion is right or wrong, if it is the actual killing of a person, and what actually defines the moral status of a fetus. In this paper, I will be arguing against Bonnie Steinbock, who believes that abortions are morally acceptable. So I will be supporting the view that abortions are not morally acceptable. In Bonnie Steinbock’s essay, “Why Abortions Are Not Wrong,” she argues that abortions are morally acceptable because fetuses are non-sentient beings and therefore lack interests as well as moral status. Her first premise suggests that it is wrong to kill an organism with moral status, so she believes that a fetus is not morally equivalent to a newborn baby because a first trimester fetus cannot think, feel, or perceive anything like a newborn baby is able to. Steinbock states that a fetus “is certainly alive and human but it feels and is aware of nothing.” She also believes in the interest view which limits the moral status to beings who have interests and restricts the possession of interests to conscious and sentient beings. Which leads to her next premise that being sentient and having interests is essential for having moral status. Steinbock states that, “sentience is the ability to experience pain and pleasure.” The difference between sentient and non-sentient beings, is that since non-sentient...
Words: 1129 - Pages: 5
...ABORTION Abortion remains a divisive and contentious issue which conjures visceral emotions within our contemporary political landscape. The dominant political approach to abortion witnesses Queensland Government engaging in the rights-based realm asserting that foetal life is to be afforded liberal rights at the expense of a woman via the formulation of anti-abortion laws . However, the politics of abortion is patent in ways far beyond centralised government with the discursive framing of abortion often being left to non-governmental actors given the sensitivity and unwillingness of politicians to copiously address abortion. This has resulted in the emergence of a rigid debate between foetal rights and women's rights making liberal rights...
Words: 1098 - Pages: 5
...Wasn’t I wanted? Abortion has always been a controversial topic, infect no matter how many times this topic has been risen, but it has always remain as unsolved. There are many people out in the world who thinks that abortion should be legal and some think it should not be. I asked this question to my self is abortion right should be legal or not? I thought on this for a long time and then I made decision that abortion is not right. We have no right to take some one’s life. Abortion is not morally right. The reasons why abortion should not be legal: it is against in all religion, no moral value, adoption is alternative option for abortion, and it may effect on women’s life and future pregnancy. Every child is a precious and unique gift from god. We have no right to decline that gift. No religion says that we have right to take some one’s life. In every religion birth and death is the choice of god. We have no right to kill even fetus because fetus is also living thing. . Everyowane have right to live. How anyone kills their own baby people who do this have no moral values. There are so many people out in the world who have no babies and they do understand the value of child, and the one is getting opportunity to have baby is not ready to accept them. “A good society is said to be one that makes it easy for its citizens to be good. Western civilization has, until now, based its laws on the principles of Judeo-Christianity. Principles mean moral absolutes”...
Words: 1000 - Pages: 4
