Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Abortions in the 1800s
Abortion in the history lens
Ethical issues in reproductive technologies
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
This paper will argue that those who advocate abortion do not actually advocate the termination of life, and in the near future artificial wombs could end the current moral debate on abortion. In order to understand this argument we need to break down the concept of abortion, or the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, into two currently linked yet intrinsically distinct concepts-extraction and termination. The right to abortion can be accepted as the right to not be pregnant, or the right to extraction. On the contrary, abortion rights could also imply the right to terminate the pregnancy, but also the right to abort the fetus. While these two concepts are distinct, they are for the moment linked. The majority of those who defend abortion do not defend termination. If science creates a safe and affordable method of extracting the fetus into an artificial womb, then in regards to the majority of arguments in favor abortion, this method would be obligatory. This would end the current debate on abortion.
Objection 1: Someone may object that the extraction of a fetus into an artificial womb is unnatural. If it were unnatural, then it would go against nature. Consequently, we as human beings shouldn’t go against nature, and artificial wombs shouldn’t be used. This objection directly attacks idea that artificial wombs could replicate the natural environment of the uterus.
Objection 2: Another objection would involve the lack of maternal refuge. If the fetus were to be transported to an artificial womb, it would be deprived of maternal care. In this case, it is argued that this is morally wrong. The argument could be carried on claiming that maternal deprivation as a developing fetus could lead to other problems in late...
... middle of paper ...
... the authority to destroy unborn life". With this emphasis, the Catholic teaching would certainly advise the preservation of life over the termination of life, whether it included an artificial womb or not.
Some day in the near future, the modern debate over abortion could be put to an end with the use of artificial wombs. Since termination is only a consequence of ending the pregnancy, then it’s almost impossible to defend the right to kill a fetus while supporting abortion. At the same time, the use of artificial wombs will bring up more moral controversy, but it is of little significance compared to the preservation of life. I believe that people of all faith and religions must realize that. In order to address the morality of those who will walk this earth, I think we must change the dynamics of abortion and artificial wombs may prove effective in doing this.
Caplan, A., & Arp, R. (2014). The deliberately induced abortion of a human pregnancy is not justifiable. Contemporary debates in bioethics (pp. 122). Oxford, West Sussex: Wiley.
The pro-life stance on abortion is often associated with and defended by traditional Christian beliefs , ; however, this paper will argue that it can and should be defended with secular arguments that appeal to reason and our shared human condition. This paper will try and counter the notion that the argument is simply another battlefield where religion and secular thought meet. Rather, it is an important issue that carries with it heavy implications not only for the religious but also for the secular. The major arguments discussed include the emotional and physical toll on the mother, the societal toll of having abortion legalized, and the rights attributed to every human being; first, however, the stance taken in this paper will be further defined and clarified.
Abortions occur for all types of reasons, whether it is because the pregnancy was unplanned, rape-induced, or that it holds a life threatening capacity for the woman herself. Pro-lifers believe once one is conceived, he or she are entitled to a right to live. It does not matter whether or not the pro-lifers are able to prove that a fetus consists of personhood. The life of a potential person should not be able to override the right to one’s body. Judith Thomson presents a though experiment where personhood is granted to a fetus, but how that mere fact still fails to override the woman’s right to her body.
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
Thou shalt not kill; one-tenth of what may arguably be the most famous guidelines of morality in the western culture, and also the main driving force for pro-life advocates. The argument supporting their beliefs typically starts with the premises that a fetus is a person, and to destroy or to kill a person is unethical. Therefore abortion, the premeditated destruction of a human being, is murder, and consequently unethical. I deny the fact that the fetus, what I will refer to as an embryo up to 22 weeks old, has the right to live. The opposing argument is invalid because a fetus, although perhaps a part of human species, is not formally a person. This leaves it simply to be a part of the woman?s body, whose fate lies solely in the hands of the pregnant woman alone, no different from a tumor she might have. By proving this, the abortion debate then becomes an issue of women?s rights, something that is most controversial indeed. Furthermore, it is fair to question the credibility of many people against abortion because of obvious contradictions in the logic of their belief systems. The fact that this debate is relevant in modern society is ludicrous since there is a simple and plausible solution to this problem that could potentially end the debate for good, leaving both sides satisfied.
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.
The argument for the moral rights of the unborn child against abortion still holds true because the child cannot be viewed as a virus that abortion presents a cure because the rights of a fetus is reserves in its identity as a member of the Homo sapien community. Therefore, any acts against an unborn child( or fetus), although presently legal, should be considered as morally unjust, which is equal to the act of murder because what is killed in an abortion is not simply, a housing of organ but a human being equal to any other. Furthermore, the idea of justifying an abortion, which essentially should be viewed as the forceful and unnatural death, of an unborn child based on the assumption that he or she cannot express thoughts, or desires therefore rendering their members to full moral rights . Thus, it negates the feeling of pain and hardships that are experience by a fetus as it is forcefully yank out the worm of his
The conservative argument asserts that every person has a right to life. The foetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what happens in and to her body. But surely a person’s right to life is stronger than the mother’s right to decide what shall happen to her body, and so outweigh it. So the foetus may not be killed and an abortion may not be performed (Thomson, 1971)
Anger and heated debate have long fueled the controversy over abortion. Whether pro-life or pro-choice, both sides of the argument are convinced of the righteousness of their beliefs. There is, however, some confusion surrounding the term “pro-choice” – it does not directly pertain to the spread and use of abortion, but rather, “pro-choicers” advocate the continued legalization of abortion in order to make the choice available and to ensure that women’s fundamental rights are not subjugated. The stance that abortion should be available has its roots in economic concerns, psychological evidence, moral dilemmas, and the Constitution.
Abortion is an issue which separates the American public, especially when it involves the death of children and women. When an abortion occurs, the medical doctor removes the fetus from the pregnant woman. This particular act has separated the public. Many believe that abortion is not morally and ethically correct. On the other hand, some people believe that carrying and delivering the unborn child will hinder the safety of the mother, then an abortion is needed. Each view has its own merit in the debate. This debate has separated the public into two sections: pro-life and pro-choice. A pro-lifer opposes abortion, whereas, a pro-choicer believes that the decision to abort the child should be left to the mother because she is the one carrying the child. In this paper, there will be topics that will be discussed concerning pro-life and pro-choice. I hope at the end of this paper, the reader is able to gain more knowledge concerning each topic. Every woman has the right to control her own body.
Abortion may be one of the most controversial topics in America today. Abortion is defined as “the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus” (cite dictionary). There are really only two sides on people’s opinion on abortion; pro-life which means abortion should be outlawed and pro-choice which means a woman should be able to decide whether she wants to keep her baby. Thousands of protests and riots have begun due to the fact pro-life activists believe abortion should become illegal. Both sides bring valid points to support their decision that could sway any person’s thoughts. The Roe v. Wade law has allowed abortion to be legal in the U.S since 1973 (Chittom & Newton, 2015). The law “gives women total control over first trimester abortions and grants state legislative control over second and third trimester abortions” (Chittom & Newton, 2015). Ever since the law was put in place, millions of people have tried to overturn it and still
Over the duration of the last century, abortion in the Western hemisphere has become a largely controversial topic that affects every human being. In the United States, at current rates, one in three women will have had an abortion by the time they reach the age of 45. The questions surrounding the laws are of moral, social, and medical dilemmas that rely upon the most fundamental principles of ethics and philosophy. At the center of the argument is the not so clear cut lines dictating what life is, or is not, and where a fetus finds itself amongst its meaning. In an effort to answer the question, lawmakers are establishing public policies dictating what a woman may or may not do with consideration to her reproductive rights. The drawback, however, is that there is no agreement upon when life begins and at which point one crosses the line from unalienable rights to murder.
The permissibility of abortion has been a crucial topic for debates for many years. People have yet to agree upon a stance on whether abortion is morally just. This country is divided into two groups, believers in a woman’s choice to have an abortion and those who stand for the fetus’s right to live. More commonly these stances are labeled as pro-choice and pro-life. The traditional argument for each side is based upon whether a fetus has a right to life. Complications occur because the qualifications of what gives something a right to life is not agreed upon. The pro-choice argument asserts that only people, not fetuses, have a right to life. The pro-life argument claims that fetuses are human beings and therefore they have a right to life. Philosopher, Judith Jarvis Thomson, rejects this traditional reasoning because the right of the mother is not brought into consideration. Thomson prepares two theses to explain her reasoning for being pro-choice; “A right to life does not entail the right to use your body to stay alive” and “In the majority of cases it is not morally required that you carry a fetus to term.”
One of the most controversial issues in this day and age is the stance people take on abortion. The two main positions that people take are either of pro-choice or pro-life; both sides, although polar opposites, tend to refer to both the issue of morality and logical rationale. The pro-life side of the debate believes that abortion is an utterly immoral practice that should be abolished. On the contrary, abortion should remain a legal procedure because it is a reproductive right; its eradication would not only take away the pregnant person’s autonomy, but would also put more children in financially unstable homes and the adoption system, and would cause an increase in potentially fatal, unsafe abortions.
The ethics of abortion is a topic that establishes arguments that attempt to argue if abortion is morally justified or not. Philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson wrote a pro- choice piece called “A Defense of Abortion.” In this paper, she presents various arguments that attempt to defend abortion by relating it to the woman carrying the fetus and her right in controlling her body. On the other side of the spectrum, philosopher Don Marquis wrote a pro- life paper called “Why Abortion Is Immoral.” Ultimately, Marquis argues that abortion is immoral with rare exceptions because it is resulting in the deprivation of the fetus’s valuable future. He supports his paper by creating the future-like-ours argument that compares the future of a fetus to the