The subject of abortion is a tough one. Many people have many different views on it. I do my best to always respect other’s views on sensitive subjects, but when it comes to abortion I become easily agitated. Wendell Berry’s essay, Caught in the Middle, did not irritate me. It includes a very well thought out examination of his views on abortion, and why those are his views. I cannot say I completely agree with every aspect of his arguments but I do agree with the conclusion he came too. In the beginning of Berry’s essay, he states “I am especially in disagreement with [political parties] when they invoke the power and authority of government to enforce the moral responsibilities of persons.” I completely agree with this statement. It is …show more content…
I especially respect that he isn’t afraid to say ‘except in certain situations’. Many people are very adamant that they are 100 percent against abortion and they do not stop to consider the detrimental effects it could have on the pregnant women, which frustrates me. The women have been alive for many years and have things to live for, whereas the babies have yet to be born and have no real connections with the world except to their mothers and potentially fathers. Though I disagree with Berry about being opposed to abortion, I am very appreciative that he recognizes there are special cases in which abortion is completely …show more content…
He seems a bit confused at first because he admits that in certain situations he would be willing to help somebody getting an abortion, but he would never willingly aid in murder. I think this is his realization that abortion is not actually murder. He then goes on to say there are four possible solutions to the controversy over abortion. The first is to make it completely illegal with no exceptions. He goes on to say that this would not work because it is choosing the life of an unborn child over the life of the mother and if they were both to die then this law would accomplish no good. The second possible solution is to make laws against it but make it legal in specific situations. The third is to make abortion legal, but say it’s wrong to perform one in specific situations. Berry says neither of these are the right solution because there are millions of different situations that could arise and it would be impossible for the government to decide whether each one made it morally okay for the abortion to be executed. The final possible solution that Berry suggests is allowing abortions without exception. He comes to the conclusion that this is the best choice; “I am going to take the risk, therefore, of saying that there should be no law either for or against abortion. …this one is more personal than public and would be best dealt with by the persons immediately
“What Numbers of procur’d Abortions! and how many distress’d Mothers have been driven, by the Terror of Punishment and public Shame, to imbrue, contrary to Nature, their own trembling Hands in the Blood of their helpless Offspring! Nature would have induc’d them to nurse it up with a Parent’s Fondness. ’Tis the Law therefore, ’tis the Law itself that is guilty of all these Barbarities and Murders.” Franklin writes this to show that mothers of illegitimate child fear the ridicule and punishments that are handed down from the Government of the colonies and jury. In fact, the mothers are willing to have an abortion to terminate the child in order to skip out on the chastisement. He turns the tables on the jury to make them uncomfortable with bringing down punishments on Miss Baker and other mothers who have children out of wedlock. This type of comment is amazing to me because if something like this were to be said in this day in age, it would be shut down immediately due to the fact that it is not politically
...es presented, and disregarded the fetuses right to a valuable life. Warren also briefly discussed the morally permissible options, such as adoption but failed to include how much more beneficiary putting a child up for adoption is rather than aborting the fetus. Marquis article is more convincing even to those who are pro-choice as it is less easy to criticize.
In the Judith Jarvis Thomson’s paper, “A Defense of Abortion”, the author argues that even though the fetus has a right to life, there are morally permissible reasons to have an abortion. Of course there are impermissible reasons to have an abortion, but she points out her reasoning why an abortion would be morally permissible. She believes that a woman should have control of her body and what is inside of her body. A person and a fetus’ right to life have a strong role in whether an abortion would be okay. Thomson continuously uses the story of a violinist to get the reader to understand her point of view.
...cknowledging that the State’s interest in the protection of an embryo … increases progressively and dramatically as the organism’s capacity to feel pain, to experience pleasure, to survive, and to react to its surroundings increases day by day.” Justice Stevens also countered Justice White’s interpretation that governmental interest in the fetus starts at conception by “recogniz[ing] that a powerful theological argument can be made for that position, but [that] our jurisdiction is limited to the evaluation of secular state interests.” Justice Stevens’ desire to curb the influence of religious views on the abortion debate within the Court and possibly beyond is evident in his Thornburgh concurrence. Justice Stevens’ concurrence and Justice White’s dissent in Thornburgh perfectly illustrate the liberal and conservative sides of the controversial abortion debate.
... abortion in several ways. First off, he is in favor of euthanasia, he believes that a terminally ill patient should not have to suffer or endure more pain if there is no pleasure in that person’s life and their future holds nothing but suffering. Marquis states that although the victim may believe that their life is valuable to them and the thought of death is frightening, their future does not hold anything of value and will only bring them further pain and suffering. Although he says that euthanasia is not immoral, his stance on abortion still fits with his stance on euthanasia. On the topic of euthanasia, if the patient is thinking rationally, he believes the victim should not have to suffer if their future holds no further value. Therefore, his theories and ideas still apply to each idea while simultaneously ensuring they do not conflict with one another.
To speak plainly, the issue of abortion is a slippery slope of morality. While siding with the Pro-Choice side myself, it felt necessary to examine Warren’s opinion so as to give constructive criticism and potentially help strengthen her argument for the future. Through Warren’s lack of sound consideration for what constitutes a personhood and numerous issues regarding potential personhood, it is clear that the conversation still has a long way to go.
The topic of my paper is abortion. In Judith Jarvis Thomson's paper, “A Defense of Abortion,” she presented a typical anti-abortion argument and tried to prove it false. I believe there is good reason to agree that the argument is sound and Thompson's criticisms of it are false.
Anderson brings up point after point to support his opinion on pro-choice abortion. Anderson writes about how the government should have no say in a woman’s decision to abort even if she is past the first trimester: “Pregnancy and motherhood affect every aspect of a woman’s life - public and private, emotional and physical - and Roe v. Wade confirmed that it was an invasion of privacy for the government to step in and make reproductive decisions on a woman’s behalf” (Anderson, 2015). Anderson explains how he believes a woman who decides to have an abortion does it because it will negatively affect their life in a way that will be changed forever. The article goes on to explain some reasons why women choose to have abortions. To back up his
...ument irrelevant in his argument. I am personally pro- life and do not agree with abortion unless a women was raped and there were extenuating circumstances if the mother’s life was threatened. Marquis FLO argument isn’t valid enough to conduce to his entire theory. Marquis cannot see into the future and determine if a fetus will have a great future. If the pregnancy goes well and the fetus is born, then yes they are entitled to a future, but whether it will be like “ours” is unpredictable making Marquis point of FLO an invalid argument. Abortion is depriving a fetus of a future life in general. If Marquis would have said this instead I would be more willing to agree with his theory. Abortion is morally impermissible because at the end of the day, it is murder. A fetus will grow to be a human with organs and a brain and have some type of future whether good or bad.
In Judith Jarvis Thompson’s article “A Defense of Abortion” she explores the different arguments against abortion presented by Pro –Life activists, and then attempts to refute these notions using different analogies or made up “for instances” to help argue her point that women do have the right to get an abortion. She explains why abortion is morally permissible using different circumstances of becoming pregnant, such as rape or unplanned pregnancy.
In the article 'A Defense of Abortion' Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that abortion is morally permissible even if the fetus is considered a person. In this paper I will give a fairly detailed description of Thomson main arguments for abortion. In particular I will take a close look at her famous 'violinist' argument. Following will be objections to the argumentative story focused on the reasoning that one person's right to life outweighs another person's right to autonomy. Then appropriate responses to these objections. Concluding the paper I will argue that Thomson's 'violinist' argument supporting the idea of a mother's right to autonomy outweighing a fetus' right to life does not make abortion permissible.
The following essay will examine the morality of abortion with specific reference to the writings of Don Marquis, Judith Jarvis Thompson, Peter Singer and Mary Anne Warren. I will begin by assessing the strength of the argument provided by Marquis which claims that abortion is impermissible because it deprives a being of a potential “future like ours,” and then go on to consider the writings of Singer, Thomson and Warren to both refute Marquis claims and support my assertion that abortion is morally permissible primarily because of the threat to the freedom and bodily autonomy of women extending the right to life to a foetus in utero would pose.
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
In our society, there are many ethical dilemmas that we are faced with that are virtually impossible to solve. One of the most difficult and controversial issues that we are faced with is abortion. There are many strong arguments both for and against the right to have an abortion which are so complicated that it becomes impossible to resolve. The complexity of this issue lies in the different aspects of the argument. The essence of a person, rights, and who is entitled to these rights, are a few of the many aspects which are very difficult to define. There are also issues of what circumstances would justify abortion. Because the issue of abortion is virtually impossible to solve, all one can hope to do is understand the different aspects of the argument so that if he or she is faced with that issue in their own lives, they would be able to make educated and thoughtful decisions in dealing with it.
It is almost unanimously agreed upon that the right to life is the most important and sacred right possessed by human beings. With this being said, it comes as no surprise that there are few issues that are more contentious than abortion. Some consider the process of abortion as immoral and consisting of the deprivation of one’s right to life. Others, on the opposite end of the spectrum, see abortion as a liberty and a simple exercise of the right to the freedom of choice.