Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Social theory on abortion
Mental illness as a factor influencing crime
Sociology abortion views for and against
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Social theory on abortion
In contrast to a socially constructed society, I deem abortion, and neonaticide (the act of killing a newborn), to be an immoral act. People in our society are prosecuted for murder every day, yet turn a blind eye to the murder that is promoted politically, economically, and socially by institutions and the individuals who run them. Although he silently favors a women’s choice, Steven Pinker conducted a piece, that originally debuted in The New York Times, over two decades ago called, “Why They Kill Their Newborns.” This essay is the motive behind Michael Kelly’s response piece that I summarized in part one. In Pinker’s essay, he provides an in-depth description to what might drive a mother to kill her newborn. His essay goes beyond the concept …show more content…
This leads the reader, in this case, me, to reach beyond the text and wonder at what point does society think it’s acceptable to commit murder, and why sometimes it is a crime, and other times it is not. In our justice system, the only acceptable case to commit murder is in self-defense; is it self-defense to kill a baby, one that the mother invited, due to irresponsible actions? Steven Pinker offers an explanation after comparing all mammals and personhood: “… the right to life must come… from significant traits that we humans happen to possess,” Pinker claims (199). He goes on to define those traits as the, “… ability to reflect upon ourselves as a continuous locus of consciousness,” and having, “… experiences that defines us as individuals and connects us to other people,” amongst other things (Pinker 199). In that case, does it make it acceptable to kill a newborn because you find out he or she is mentally ill? How can you earn what you’re not given? How is that morally acceptable? These are all rhetorical questions that answer …show more content…
Doesn’t this directly contradict his claim two pages earlier? “These are middle-class girls whose babies would have been kept far from starvation by the girl’s parents or by any of thousands of eager adoptive couples,” Pinker states (197). He later writes, after describing emotions and their connection to history, “She will give birth in circumstances that are particularly unpromising for a human mother: alone,” (Pinker 197). How is the young mother alone if she is in a middle-class family, supported by her parents? What better conditions could he potentially be alluding to… a prince with a white horse, or avoiding the humiliation by peers in correspondence to teen pregnancy? Does that give someone the right to kill a human being? According to Pinker, it
The second article I have chosen to evaluate for this topic is The Designer Baby Myth written by Steven Pinker. This article starts off by explaining how many people fear the idea of genetic enhancement. Several citizens are concerned about creating the ultimate inequality or changing human nature itself. Many will say technology in medicine is increasing to the point where genetic improvement is inevitable. Steven presents his position on the matter in his thesis statement; “But when it come to direct genetic enhancement-engineering babies with genes for desirable traits-there are many reasons to be skeptical.” He makes it clear that genetic enrichment is not particularly inevitable or likely in our lifetime. He bases his skepticism around three sources; the limits of futurology, science of behavioral genetics, and human nature.
Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood by Kristen Luker, analyzes the historical and complex sociology of abortion. Luker focuses on three important factors: a historical overview of abortion, the pro-life and pro-choice views, and the direction the abortion debates are going (11, Luker, Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood p. 000). Abortion has always been seen as murder and with the idea that those who are already living have more rights. Back in the days, the laws didn’t give fetus personhood. Also, the laws against abortions weren’t strictly enforced upon anyone. In addition, abortion didn’t seem to be a huge problem, which explains why abortion was ignored in the past.
Don Marquis is a philosopher arguing that any form of abortion is immoral. His original thesis states: In the overwhelming majority of cases, deliberate abortions are seriously immoral. He begins by stating why killing is wrong in three statements. He states, “killing is wrong because it brutalizes the killer, it is a loss to others, and it robs the victim of all the experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted one’s future” (68). The first two statements do not address the fetus, but the last statement is very arguable, so Marquis emphasizes his argument on this premise. Depriving anybody of their future has many consequences. Some parts of a person’s future are valued now and some parts could be valued later. Therefore, it is wrong to kill any adult human because it is a loss of future (which has value). He addresses the questions of personhood by stating that fetuses have the potential to be humans. Therefore, killing a fetus is depriving the fetus of having a
“I argue that it is personhood, and not genetic humanity, which is the fundamental basis for membership in the moral community” (Warren 166). Warren’s primary argument for abortion’s permissibility is structured around her stance that fetuses are not persons. This argument relies heavily upon her six criteria for personhood: A being’s sentience, emotionality, reason, capacity for communication, self-awareness, and having moral agencies (Warren 171-172). While this list seems sound in considering an average, healthy adult’s personhood, it neither accounts for nor addresses the personhood of infants, mentally ill individuals, or the developmentally challenged. Sentience is one’s ability to consciously feel and perceive things around them. While it is true that all animals and humans born can feel and perceive things within their environment, consider a coma patient, an individual suspended in unconsciousness and unable to move their own body for indeterminate amounts of time. While controversial, this person, whom could be in the middle of an average life, does not suddenly become less of a person
The criterion for personhood is widely accepted to consist of consciousness (ability to feel pain), reasoning, self-motivation, communication and self-awareness. When Mary Anne Warren states her ideas on this topic she says that it is not imperative that a person meet all of these requirements, the first two would be sufficient. We can be led to believe then that not all human beings will be considered persons. When we apply this criterion to the human beings around us, it’s obvious that most of us are part of the moral community. Although when this criterion is applied to fetuses, they are merely genetic human beings. Fetuses, because they are genetically human, are not included in the moral community and therefore it is not necessary to treat them as if they have moral rights. (Disputed Moral Issues, p.187). This idea is true because being in the moral community goes hand in hand w...
No upstanding and sane person would ever sanction mass murder; and yet, by supporting abortion that is just what is happening. Every day 3,238 babies are killed in brutal ways inside the womb through processes such as dilation and curettage, where a loop shaped knife is used to cut the baby into pieces, then its body parts are checked in case any parts remain in the mother ("Abortion"). Even worse, such statistics do not include the abortions that take place due to contraceptives and the “morning after pills”. However, the most horrific aspect of this aside form sickening medical procedures and toxic medicine is the culprits. Parents, the two most important people who are supposed to protect their children, have deserted them and left them vulnerable, sentenced to death.
...e open to all women at any point of pregnancy, and that the woman reserves the right as a fully conscious member of the moral community to choose to carry the child or not. She argues that fetuses are not persons or members of the moral community because they don’t fulfill the five qualities of personhood she has fashioned. Warren’s arguments are valid, mostly sound, and cover just about all aspects of the overall topic. However much she was inconsistent on the topic of infanticide, her overall writing was well done and consistent. 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.
The author realizes the wrongfulness in killing someone who’s living a healthy life, we see this when the author states, “I saw the mystery, the unspeakable wrongness, of cutting a life short when it is in full tide.” Even though he does not object to these actions he does not agree with them.
Thomson argue that a pregnant woman still has the right to abortion even if the fetus is a person from conception. He argues this by giving the analogy of someone who is kidnapped and forced to serve as a life support system for a violinist without the person’s consent. I feel this analogy is not comparable to having an abortion because conception and pregnancy are foreseeable consequences of even careful sex and waking up and being someone’s life support is not a foreseeable outcome. By causing children to be made, parents also cause them to need support; it's a package deal. When parents mutually agree to have sex they are risking the chance to becoming pregnant. The parents are not enslaved they've volunteered. This may put the needs of a parent and child in conflict, but it creates no clash of rights between them. This is because parents be obligated their children support.
Infanticide is a way to alter the reproductive stream before the child has the status of a real person, which is culturally defined (source). The deaths of weak, illegitimate, excess, deformed and unwanted infants are not defined as murder when the infants have not yet been born into the social world. Infanticide occurs cross-culturally for a multitude of causes. The reasons for infanticide can be summed up into three categories: biological (including the health of the child and twin stigmas), economical (relation to other children, women's workload, and available resources) and cultural (preferred gender, illegitimate children). This essay will examine cross-culturally the biological, economic and cultural factors for infanticide.
One of the biggest issue of abortion goes back to the controversial question of when human life actually begins. Many people will often argue that a fetus is a living being from the moment of conception and feel that it deserves the same legal protections as an adult, therefore making it immoral to kill it. Just like in our court system, we would not put an innocent person on death penalty. The fetus has done nothing wrong and has the right to live. As the editor of Christianity Today wrote, "abortion is one of those monumental issues of justice that comes along once in a lifetime. It is violence against children, a hideous act of poisoning or dismembering tiny bodies, then dumping them in a landfill or garbage disposal." On the other hand, those who are for abortion say that a fetus is only a "potential human being." The advocates for legal abortions want the mother to choose whether she keeps the baby or kills it, and the rights of a mother supersede the rights of a baby. John M. Sw...
One of the most controversial issues in society today is abortion, and as of now, it is morally acceptable because of Roe vs Wade. However, when a study conducted by Minnesota reveals that women who have had an abortion have 10 times the risk of committing suicide than women who have not had an abortion, it’s time to seriously think about whether or not abortion should be acknowledged as morally right. Considered by some to be a form of murder, anti-abortion laws should apply to all women in order to prevent any emotional mishaps of the abortion victim and to save the lives of the innocent human beings not yet born. Pro-Choice advocates believe that abortion should be legalized because they feel it is necessary to empower women with choice. They have strong opinions that women are not subordinate, so they ought to be allowed to make moral decisions and should not be forced to have a child, but why should the child have to suffer for the wrongdoings of his mother?
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.
There has been a continuing debate about whether life begins in the womb or at birth. But it should be obvious to all people that life begins at the moment of conception. Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, a professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, testifies against a U.S. Senate committee, “I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty…is not a human being. This is human life at every stage,” (NAAPC). If, from the moment of conception and on, are the stages of a human life, then at every stage is a human being. Our laws protect us, stating that it is forbidden to kill another human being. But then why are Pro-Abortionists slowly, but surely influencing how we view a human life? “Our laws should protect the unborn just as they protect the born,” (Lyons). Abortion is murder and shouldn’t be thought as ...
Abortion in the United States is a legal form of murder. Each and every year over a million babies are murdered and it must be stopped now before it will continue to get out of hand each and every day. We have discussed in this essay that a fetus is a living humans and not something that can just be thrown away. An unborn child is still a child and he or she needs an opportunity to grow and live a long successful life just like the rest of us have gotten the privilege to do. Abortion cannot go on any longer. More and more live are lost every day.