Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Opposing viewpoints for abortion
Opposing viewpoints for abortion
Arguements advanced by both pro-life and pro-choice suppoters
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Opposing viewpoints for abortion
This essay, written by Don Marquis, attempts to undermine general beliefs that anti-abortionist views are simply based on irrational religious or other beliefs. The essay ignores certain special cases of abortion; and mainly purports its focus onto the general arguments against anti-abortionist views by pro-choice holders. Marquis begins by outlining a common argument of anti-abortionists, in which a fetus is seen as being human enough by possessing a genetic code, and is thus necessary and sufficient for dictating that being as a human. This leads to a common conclusion that if a fetus is a human, it must follow to be understood as it being wrong to kill a human. Secondly, he outlines the argument of a pro-choice advocate; which asserts that fetuses are not rational or social beings, therefore it is not a wrongful killing.
From this point, Marquis attempts to outline common objections to anti-abortionism, and give replies in which may better support his view, by characterizing and defining situations which are commonly brought up in such arguments. Firstly, an anti-abortionist will hold that it is “prima facie seriously wrong to end the life of a baby”, which is a generally obvious position. A pro-choicer would typically respond that it is only seriously wrong to take the life of another member of the human society, which refers to active members and social beings in a community. This leads to a point where it is commonly seen that anti-abortionists hold too narrow of a principle, while pro-choice views are too broad. Thus, it stands that both parties must further elaborate to support their claims. Furthermore, an anti-abortionist will claim, “it is prima facie seriously wrong to end the life of a human being”. However, this do...
... middle of paper ...
...ice. While I value my experience, as I feel should be commonly held by others and the way in which we interact (killing adults is wrong), I don’t see a strong enough basis for that view to be held for a fetus. As Marquis summarized, the killing of a fetus is essentially arbitrarily choosing a human cell. Although fetuses in first trimester aren’t single celled organisms, they serve no cognitive function or purposes to themselves, so there are no features in which it is being deprived of if it is terminated. The potential life of a fetus is the same as saying there is a potential for any such biological thing, it is simply a scenario, which could happen if given the opportunity. But if an adult human possesses the ability to have goals and desires, they then should be allowed to make the discretion for their best interest to whether an abortion is permissible or not.
In this paper I will discuss Don Marquis’s essay “Why Abortion is Immoral” and Judith Jarvis Thomson’s objections to Marquis’ argument against abortion.
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.
In Dan Marquis’ article, “Why Abortion is Immoral”, he argues that aborting a fetus is like killing a human being already been born and it deprives them of their future. Marquis leaves out the possible exceptions of abortion that includes: 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 through examining the difference between a human being already born future compared to a potential fetus’s future. Thus, Marquis’ argument for his pro-life
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.
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.
This essay examines and critiques Judith Jarvis Thomson’s, A Defense of Abortion (1971). Thomson sets out to show that the foetus does not have a right to the mother’s body and that it would not be unjust to perform an abortion when the mother’s life is not threatened. For the sake of the argument, Thomson adopts the conservative view that the foetus is a person from the moment of conception. The conservative argument asserts that every person has a right to life. The foetus has a right to life.
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.
Patrick Lee and Robert P. George’s, “The Wrong of Abortion” is a contentious composition that argues the choice of abortion is objectively unethical. Throughout their composition, Lee and George use credibility and reason to appeal the immorality of abortions. The use of these two methods of persuasion are effective and compels the reader to consider the ethical significance. Lee and George construct their argument by disputing different theories that would justify abortions. They challenge the ontological and evaluation theories of the fetus, as well as the unintentional killing theory. This article was obtained through Google, in the form of a PDF file that is associated with Iowa State University.
Marquis’s argument that it is immoral to kill, and abortion is wrong because it deprives one of a valuable future has a lot of problems in my eyes that does not make his view on anti-abortion solid. The lack of arguments that do not raise questions that seem to go unanswered make it hard to be persuaded to change a pro-abortionist mind or even be open to understanding where Marquis’s arguments lead. His “what if” argument leaves room for anyone opposing to “what if” in any direction which is not grounds for an effective argument and hurts Marquis’s because a lot of the questions go unanswered in his essay.
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.
Abortion is an important and rather popular topic in the philosophical world. On one side of the argument, pro choice, Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that abortion is permissible because the pregnancy might not have been voluntary or the mother’s life is at risk if she continues on with the pregnancy. On the opposing side of the argument, Don Marquis argues that abortion is wrong because it takes away all the potential things a fetus could value in their future life. In this paper, I will argue against Don Marquis view of abortion. I will begin by explaining that Marquis does not take into consideration the effect the pregnancy may have on the mother, and I will talk about how Thomson does take the mother into consideration. Next, I will criticize
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.”
According to Judith Thomson in her book “A Defense of Abortion”, a human embryo is a person who has a right to life. But, just because the human fetus has the right to life does not mean that the mother will be forced to carry it (Thomson, 48). Naturally, abortion may be seen as the deliberate termination of a pregnancy before the fetal viability. Though people have understood this, the topic of abortion has remained a controversial issue in the world. Individuals are divided into “Pro-choice” and “Pro-life” debaters depending on their opinion on the morality of the action. "Pro-life," the non-consequentialist side, is the belief that abortion is wrong, generally because it equates to killing. "Pro-choice," the consequentialist view, however,
In my argumentative coursework I am arguing that abortion is wrong and not to be mistaken with 'Abortion should be made illegal.' I will explain later why I have made this statement. Abortion is the termination of an unborn child in its mother's womb for up to twenty four weeks of the pregnancy or in special circumstances e.g. Disability diagnosis a termination right up until the mother goes in to labour. I think the above definition is an easier and less harsh way of saying that abortion is the murdering of a human being. There are several reasons why abortion is legal and several reasons why it shouldn?t be.
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.