Peter Singer’s argument in Animal Liberation will have implications for the moral permissibility of abortion. He argued that all species deserve equal consideration from the other species, one must not be bias towards their own species. At some stage of pregnancy, when the fetus developed the ability to feel pain, doing abortion would be impermissible according to Singer. This is because he was for utilitarian view, which is the concept of minimizing pain and suffering, and maximizing happiness. The goal in life is to bring an end to pain and to reach happiness. Abortion would be immoral because a fetus would experience any kind of pain or suffering. This is immoral because Singer’s moral was to minimize suffering however, doing abortion would
In the US, 89% of abortions are performed during the first trimester of a woman 's pregnancy. Approximately 115,000 abortions are done per day in the US and at least 25 and younger women have a 50% of having an abortion. This paper will reflect on the moral status of abortion, a fetus having value to life, alternative options instead of abortion and rape being an exception. The conservative point feels a fetus should be given full moral status. They should be given full moral status because in the early weeks of development they are developing major organs. A fetus should be given the right to continue to fully develop so that they have the opportunity to contribute to society. If an abortion occurs, it does not give a fetus the opportunity
On December 2,2015 I went to to the Lynnhaven building to receive some feedback on my agreement paper for English 111. It was a very rainy day after running through the rain when I reached the writing center room. There was a yellow note saying that the writing center was in the student center until December 4,2015. After reading the note I ran back in the rain to my car.It was to cold to walk it was raining. As I approached the student center I was told by a security guard that the tutoring lab was located on the third floor. I had walked up three flights of stairs. When I had finally reached the third floor,I walk into the tutoring lab. There were about eight tables, but only four staff members and one student. Amen had approached me asking what did I need help with today. I replied saying that I would like some feedback on my paper for English. He then pointed to the writing table and said “she can assist you with your paper”.
I both agree and disagree with Peter Singer. While I believe that we do have a moral obligation to help others, I also believe we have a moral obligation to leave other people alone and let them get on with their lives.
The word abortion brings out a variety of attitudes & perceptions amongst people. The topic is surrounded by emotion and empathy, which often creates a divide, those who view abortion as permissible and those who do not. In “Bioethics Before Birth," Tooley and Marquis provide their arguments on abortion. Their arguments share some similarities but their viewpoints and delivery set them apart. I will evaluate and compare the differences and similarities in their arguments.
The standard argument against abortion claims that the fetus is a person and therefore has a right to life. Thomson shows why this standard argument against abortion is a somewhat inadequate account of the morality of abortion.
Many arguments in the abortion debate assume that the morality of abortion depends upon the moral status of the foetus. While I regard the moral status of the foetus as important, it is not the central issue that determines the moral justifiability of abortion. The foetus may be awarded a level of moral status, nevertheless, such status does not result in the prescription of a set moral judgement. As with many morally significant issues, there are competing interests and a variety of possible outcomes that need to be considered when making a moral judgement on abortion. While we need to determine the moral status of the foetus in order to establish the type of entity we are dealing with, it does not, however, exist in a moral vacuum. There are other key issues requiring attention, such as the moral status and interests of the pregnant woman who may desire an abortion, and importantly, the likely consequences of aborting or not aborting a particular foetus. Furthermore, I assert that moral status should be awarded as a matter of degree, based upon the capacities of sentience and self-consciousness an entity possesses. In a bid to reach a coherent conclusion on the issue, the moral status of both foetus and woman, along with the likely results of aborting a particular foetus, must be considered together. Given the multiple facets requiring consideration, I assert that utilitarianism (Mill 1863) offers a coherent framework for weighing and comparing the inputs across a variety of situations, which can determine whether it is ever morally justifiable to have an abortion.
Despite finding Harley’s article easier to absorb, I will be providing insight and knowledge of Scannell’s article “Dailiness” as I drew interest into his concepts and ideas behind the notion of temporality of everyday life. After Scannell’s reading, I could see myself reflecting different notions of time and ‘media time’, through his concepts of routinisation and the ‘care structures’ of dailiness I became exposed to the recurring cycle we live in.
Singer first points out that the different opinions on abortion come from the debate on when a human life actually begins. He formulates the common argument against abortion as follows: it is wrong to kill an innocent human being; a human fetus is an innocent human being; therefore, it is wrong to kill a human fetus. It is because killing a human being is undoubtedly wrong and immoral that the opposition instead attempts to deny the second part of the argument “a human fetus is an innocent human being”. By doing so, critics argue that the fetus does not have the status of a human being. This debate results in focusing on whether, or when, the fetus can be considered a human being, and therefore given the same rights against being killed as another human being. Singer however claims that it is difficult to find a moral dividing line between a fetus and a human being because the development of the human egg to a child is gradual. To prove his point, he describes four commonly proposed moral lines (birth, viability, quickening, and consciousness), which he then denies with strong arguments.
There are many factors that are taken into consideration when determining if abortion is morally permissible, or wrong including; sentience of the fetus, the fetuses right to life, the difference between adult human beings and fetuses, the autonomy of the pregnant woman, and the legality of abortion. Don Marquis argues that abortion is always morally wrong, excluding cases in which the woman is threatened by pregnancy, or abortion after rape, because fetuses have a valuable future. Mary Anne Warren contends that late term abortions are morally permissible because birth is the most significant event for a fetus, and a woman’s autonomy should never be suspended.
Peter Singer’s position in his work “The Obligation to Assist”, is that all people are morally obligated to help one another without it causing any additional harm. He refers to “comparable moral significance”, which means that helping another must not cause anything worse to happen, or be a morally wrong action in and of itself, and must also be done if a comparably awful event can be stopped. His first premise is that if absolute poverty is wrong, and it can be stopped without worse consequences, then it should be stopped altogether. His second premise is that if you were to see a drowning child, you would help them out of the lake, even if your coat happens to get wet. His third premise is that morals do not need to be examined, as the need to help others should be logical without examining the morality behind it. His final premise is that the First World is rich enough to reduce poverty, and can therefore feel obligated to help. The implication of this position is that no matter what situation surrounds the person in need of help, another person would be obligated to assist them. Thusly, people who could help without having to forgo “comparable moral significance” and refrain from
Abortion is a widely arguable issue that begs the question whether a mother has the right to abort her child or if the child has the right to life. Abortion is the deliberate removal of a fetus from the womb of the mother, resulting in the death of the child. Abortions are said to be morally permissible after a certain number of months after the mother is pregnant because of the development of the embryo to have a brain. The other side of the argument is that right when the mother is pregnant, it is wrong for the mother to abort because the embryo has a right to life as soon as the mother is pregnant. This is a primary concern for anti-abortion supporters. Mary Warren takes this pro-life stance to defend the life of the fetus by not allowing abortions under any circumstance in her case, “On the Moral and legal status of Abortion”, 1973. Warren argues whether abortion is morally permissible at any stage of pregnancy and under any circumstances. Warren’s argument for her stance on abortion is stated as 1) It is wrong to kill human beings. 2) Fetuses are innocent human beings. 3) Therefore it is wrong to kill fetuses. She claims that the credit for her argument lies in the definition of the term ‘human being’. The definition of human is a member of the biological species Homo Sapien. This includes adults, children, and also fetuses that are unborn in the mother’s womb. This is the argument for why abortion is not morally permissible in any case because fetuses are innocent human beings with an inherent right to life as a biological organism. Along with a moral sense of community, human is being a member of the moral community o...
Warren rejects emotional appeal in a very Vulcan like manner; devout to reason and logic and in doing so has created a well-written paper based solely on this rational mindset. Works Cited Warren, Mary Anne, and Mappes, D. DeGrazia. On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion. Biomedical Ethics 4th (1996): 434-440. Print.
Abortions can happen in two ways one by accident often called a miscarriage and the second way is often called an induced abortion where the foetus is forced out of the body. A utilitarian would say that if a couple could not raise the child it would be better if they are aborted because it would put less burden in society. Thus when using the utilitarian consequential principle of ethics, we establish a set general morals and rules in which we can apply to every moral question based upon our utilitarian findings. When this is applied to abortion, we can see that abortion is completely ethical entity that provided “the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people.” (Jeremy Bentham,
Abortion is one of America’s most controversial subjects. The participants in this debate have fixed beliefs on the matter at hand. On one side of the debate are people who believe in pro- choice. They argue that choice of a woman is more important than an unborn fetus. They point out that an unborn child is not on the same level of importance as the mother. Also, the pro-life group declares that choice is the sole purpose behind their argument. They believe that if a woman cannot chose to abolish a pregnancy, then she looses one of her basic human rights. The other side of the debate is the pro-life group. Their main concern is that the fetus is a person; therefore, having the same human rights as the mother. As a result, when states pass laws that enable abortions, these states are legalizing murder. When considering an individual’s ethics and values, killing is morally wrong. Therefore, the termination of unborn children is wrong, as well. Abortion, the unethical expulsion of an embryo or fetus, in order to purposely end a pregnancy, should be forbidden because human life begins at conception, economics is not a justification for abortion, and an unwanted child does not justify abortion.
For example, a mother who opts to abort lives a life full of misery and guilt following her unethical action. The same issue is explored by Kant, where he argues that frequent abortions would make the human race extinct. Therefore, not irrational or good to the society. Lastly, they argue that abortion denies the fetus the right to life which is granted by the Human Rights Commission. Judith Thomson argument that a human embryo is a person indicates that he or she has the right to life, and no one has a right to terminate it (Baird & Stuart, 78). Therefore, abortion is unacceptable, irrational and immoral action to