Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Judith jarvis thomson a defense of abortion critical analysis
Judith jarvis thomson a defense of abortion critical analysis
Judith jarvis thomson a defense of abortion critical analysis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/vaksam/">Sam Vaknin's Psychology, Philosophy, Economics and Foreign Affairs Web Sites
The issue of abortion is emotionally loaded and this often makes for poor, not thoroughly thought out arguments. The questions: "Is abortion immoral" and "Is abortion a murder" are often confused. The pregnancy (and the resulting foetus) are discussed in terms normally reserved to natural catastrophes (force majeure, in legal lingo). At times, the embryo is compared to cancer: after all, they are both growths, clusters of cells. The difference, of course, is that no one contracts cancer willingly (except, to some extent, smokers --but, then they gamble, not contract). When a woman engages in voluntary sex, does not use contraceptives and gets pregnant - one can say that she signed a contract with her foetus. A contract entails the demonstrated existence of a reasonably (and reasonable) free will. If the fulfilment of the obligations in a contract could be life-threatening - it is fair and safe to assume that no rational free will was involved. No reasonable person would sign or enter such a contract. Judith Jarvis Thomson argued convincingly ("A Defence of Abortion") that pregnancies that are the result of forced sex (rape being a special case) or which are life threatening should or could, morally, be terminated. Using the transactional language : the contract was not entered to willingly or reasonably and, therefore, is null and void. Any actions which are intended to terminate it and to annul its consequences should be legally and morally permissible.
The same goes for a contract which was entered into against the express will of one of the parties and despite all the reasonable measures that the unwilling party adopted to prevent its crystallization. If a mother uses contraceptives in a manner intended to prevent pregnancy, it is as good as saying: I do not want to sign this contract, I am doing my reasonable best not to sign it, if it is signed - it is contrary to my express will. There is little legal (or moral) doubt that such a contract should be voided. Much more serious problems arise when we study the other party to these implicit agreements: the embryo. To start with, it lacks consciousness (in the sense that is needed for signing an enforceable and valid contract). Can a contract be validated even if one of the "signatories" lacked this sine qua non trait? In the absence of consciousness, there is little point in talking about free will.
In Dan Marquis’ article, “Why Abortion is Immoral”, he argues that aborting a fetus is like killing a human being already born and it deprives them of their future. Marquis leaves out the possible exceptions to abortion that include: a threat to the mom’s life, contraceptives, and pregnancy by rape. First, I will explain Marquis’ pro-life argument in detail about his statements of why abortion is morally wrong. Like in many societies, killing an innocent human being is considered morally wrong, just like in the United States. Second, I will state my objection to Marquis’ argument by examining the difference between a human being’s already born future compared to a potential fetus’s future.
Abortion is the ending of a pregnancy before birth; it causes the termination of the embryo or fetus inside the women. There are two different types of abortion, a spontaneous abortion, which is also known as a miscarriage, and an induced abortion, where the embryo or fetus is purposely removed from the women’s body. The topic of induced abortion has been widely debated for hundreds of years. The issue of abortion was argued way back in the time of the ancient Hebrews. In the United States it became illegal around the mid 1800’s and not until the 1960’s was the argument for the right to abort brought back to the table. In 1973, the Supreme Court case “Roe vs. Wade” made abortion legal. The case stated that abortion was legal in the first trimester (three months) of pregnancy (O’Brien par. 17). Since that day over 30 years ago, there have been many cases in which abortion has been disputed. Congress has passed many laws restricting abortion rights, including in cases such as Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services and Stenberg v. Carhart (O’Brien par. 18). There are many other cases like these and each time is seems more likely that a woman’s right to choose could be overturned (“Reproductive Rights” 26). There are many different ranges of beliefs about the morality of abortion, whether or not one should have an abortion, and under what conditions the termination of pregnancy is acceptable. Many argue at what point in the process of pregnancy a human person comes into existence. People disagree about whether anything from an ovum to a fetus is a form of human life. No person knows this information, but it is debated among the two major sides on this issue. The first side are those that believe abortion should be forb...
How would you feel if someone took away your ability to live and have a future? You wouldn't have the opportunity to crawl, take your first step, have your first kiss, or experience those butterflies in your stomach at the sight of first love. Millions of special moments, a life, shredded to pieces. This is essentially what abortion does. Abortion is not the answer in the case of an unplanned pregnancy and needs to be stopped! First of all, abortion is a type of unnecessary murder that occurs in inhumane ways and cannot be tolerated. Moreover, there are alternatives to abortion and many families who are looking to adopt. Lastly, the side effects of abortion can cause life threatening health risks to the mother. Excuses will always be made, but the bottom line is that abortion is not acceptable and should be stopped.
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 idea of whether abortion should be illegal or allowed is a controversial one since everyone seems to have different ideologies. Judith Thomson, who is in support of pro-choice argues in her article “A Defense of Abortion” main idea towards abortion is stating women should have the right to choose because they have the moral right to decide whether they have to hold life in their body. This idea is presented from her first analogy using the violinist who has a failing kidney and will perish if he does not have someone give him blood immediately. They take you without your permission and plug you into him. She connects this to the idea of the fetus by saying everyone has the right to life and if the fetus is considered a person then it would be wrong to kill an innocent human being, but then says that if the child is harming you then you should not wait until you are dead, he body is the home of the women so she should be allowed to defend herself against
One popular objection is: if it is immoral to deprive someone of a future, or a “future-like-ours”, then it is immoral to deprive a sperm or egg of a “future-like-ours”. Because it is immoral to deprive someone of a future, one must conclude that it is immoral to deprive a sperm or egg of a “future-like-ours”. This objection is in reference to different modes of contraception, such as condoms and birth control. Nevertheless, the biggest problem with Marquis’ argument that allowed for this objection was its indecisiveness and improbability to draw a definitive line. Marquis criticized the pro-lifers and pro-choicers for being unable to have a definitive definition and made the same mistake in his own argument. One could object to his argument by merely questioning where the decision would end; are we to believe that one is depriving a sperm or an egg a future when we use contraception? Another important note is the idea that a “future-like-ours” is even an even more ambiguous term than a “person” or “human being”. It is impossible for the average individual to know which of his sperm or her eggs carries a genetic abnormality that may cause their child to not have a
Whether or not abortion is morally right or wrong, the fact remains that a woman
While deciding whether to be pro-life or pro-choice, many people consider the moral aspect of abortion and its consequences. On the pro-choice side, a woman should have the right to choose whether or not she wants to give birth. The argument is that it is her body and she is the one who will have the responsibility of caring for that child. The problem, however, with this argument is that it does not take into consideration whether abortion is right or wrong, and it does not deal with the morality of the issue. However, the arguments of the pro-life side may be more correct simply because they make a moral judgment. In Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, abortion is defined as the "termination of a pregnancy often accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of an embryo or fetus.
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...
Since the Darwinian Revolution of the 19th century our society has turned upside down. Everything under the sun had become questionable, the origin of life, how we came to be, where are we headed and what to do in the here all became questions in life. But one of the greatest impacts of this new age thinking is its effect on our Old World values. Western societies values, morals and ethics became debatable, with some people striving for change and others clinging for stability. Battle lines had been drawn and the Liberals and Conservatives were ready to duke it out on a number of issues. One of these debates centers on a woman?s right to have and abortion. According to the Webster?s dictionary and abortion is defined as a miscarry, something misshapen or unnatural. An abortion is a procedure in which an embryo or fetus is prohibited from developing by artificial means. One could argue that this is next to murder. How can we as a society sanction the murdering of developing babies? Also it can equally be stated that abortion is unnatural and a health hazard to women who have undergone the procedure. Whatever the case, abortion should be outlawed because it is immoral and mothers should face the responsibilities of their actions. Many arguments can be used in order to put an end to abortion or at least in order to establish dialogue. One of the oldest arguments against abortion is the religious standpoint. Western society (Canada & U.S.A.) is historically a Judeo-Christian culture with Judeo-Christian values. Although in recent times we have become an increasingly pluristic society the Old World thinking is still at the heart of our social relations and laws. The Bible says ?Thou shalt not kill? thus prohibiting people from harming others or themselves. Abortion and its advocates violate this law. They seek to change one of the most fundamental values of our society. Pro-choice under this stance is equated with murder and ?playing God?. One may raise the question, how can a minority inflict its views of the majority? According to Francis X. Meenan, this is a false assumption. He goes on to claim that those who favor abortion on demand are the real minority (Bender & Leone, 97). He also claims that the issue of abortion is a moral debate and cannot be settled by numbers. So even if pro-choice advocates outnumbered pro-life advocates, this would prove or...
Abortion has been one of the biggest controversies of all time. According to the Oxford dictionary, the term abortion can be defined as, the deliberate termination of human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. There are two different types of abortion; a spontaneous abortion, which is also known as a miscarriage, and an induced abortion, where the embryo or fetus is purposely removed from the women’s body. The topic of induced abortion has been widely debated for hundreds of years. The issue of abortion was argued way back in the time of the ancient Hebrews. Today many people consider abortion to be murder, but shouldn’t the soon-to-be mother 's right to make such a personal and heartbreaking choice be
In such positions, the resolution to terminate a pregnancy may be argued as the most ethical choice. The mother is also considered to have a reasonable level of ethical responsibility to the fetus, because she did not take enough precautions to ensure avoid conception (Cline, 2014). The mother’s ethical responsibility to the fetus may not be enough to deprive her of choice of abortion; it may be enough to ascertain when an abortion can be ethically selected (Cline, 2014). When a woman does not wish to carry an abortion to term, it will be unethical for law or any other person to force them to do so.... ...
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,
The basic law of a contract is an agreement between two parties or more, to deliver a service or a product. And reach a consensus about the terms and conditions that is enforced by law and a contract can be only valid if it is lawful other than that there can’t be a contract. For a contract to exist the parties must have serious intentions, agreement, contractual capacity meaning a party must be able to carry a responsibility, lawful, possibility of performance and formalities. Any duress, false statements, undue influence or unconscionable dealings could make a contract unlawful and voidable.
A contract is an agreement between two parties in which one party agrees to perform some actions in return of some consideration. These promises are legally binding. The contract can be for exchange of goods, services, property and so on. A contract can be oral as well as written and also it can be part oral and part written but it is useful to have written contract otherwise issues can be created in future. But both the written as well as oral contract is legally enforceable. Also if there is a breach of contract, there are certain remedies for that which are discussed later in the assignment. There are certain elements which need to be present in a contract. These elements are discussed in the detail in the assignment. (Clarke,