In this paper, I will be discussing the topic of abortion. I have chosen R.M. Hare, and Judith Jarvis Thompson as two candidates from the book the “The Moral life” by Steve Luper, and Curtis Brown. I will be discussing the critique, and defense of abortion. I will be presenting, analyzing and critically evaluating the writers view on the topic, then I will be discussing my own views about the issue of abortion, and how the arguments of the two writers guide the conclusion of abortion. R.M. Hare’s argument in “A Kantian Critique of Abortion” or a “Kantian approach to abortion”. This writer talks about if the fetus should be considered a person, and if it should have rights like every human being. The author in the book says that “most …show more content…
R.M. Hare wrote this paper in 1989.I feel like even though he wrote this paper 28 years ago that were still trying to figure out as a society what would be right for the mother and the fetus, and if the fetus should be considered a person or if the fetus has any type of rights. R.M. Hare asks more questions than answers. I believe that is because even back then the topic of abortion was or is the same as it is today. I think that its difficult to understand or wrap up abortion into one simple law or rule that would involve everyone and would benefit every woman without there being any type of disagreements or any type protest against this law because like some women say, “there body their rights” I think this is true, but that is just till a Certain extent.
Judith Jarvis Thompson wrote her paper in 1971 even though it was years ago it’s the same thing as R.M. Hare’s paper where both the papers they wrote are still relevant because
The debate about abortion focuses on two issues; 1.) Whether the human fetus has the right to life, and, if so, 2.) Whether the rights of the mother override the rights of the fetus. The two ethicists who present strong arguments for their position, and who I am further going to discuss are that of Don Marquis and Judith Thomson. Marquis' "Future Like Ours" (FLO) theory represents his main argument, whereas, Thomson uses analogies to influence the reader of her point of view. Each argument contains strengths and weaknesses, and the point of this paper is to show you that Marquis presents a more sound argument against abortion than Thomson presents for it. An in depth overview of both arguments will be
In this paper I am going to critically evaluate “A Defense of Abortion” by Judith Thompson, a moral philosopher and metaphysician, who argues that is morally okay to abort a fetus even if the fetus is considered a person and contrast it to another moral philosopher and utilitarian, Peter Singer who deems her argument to be flawed.
While parts of both may be true, both cannot stand side by side as completely true when discussing abortion. As they stand today, fetus rights and female rights are incompatible in arena of abortion. Even the “other side” agrees that the two cannot stand shoulder to shoulder. In a chapter entitled “Abortion Does Not Violate Human Rights”, Christian Beenfeldt quotes Brian McKinely when claiming that female rights have a higher precedence than fetus rights: “It’s actually quite simple. You cannot have two entities with equal rights occupying one body. One will automatically have veto power over the other.” So one question remains, which more important, fetus rights or female rights? The winner of this question can be decided by one simple factor: is the fetus to be considered a true, living human being at the point of conception, or does true human life not begin until after birth? A clarification should be made here, however. In this paper it will be assumed that everyone involved in this debate considers a newborn child to be a human being. That is, at the moment of birth, a child either becomes a human being or continues to be a human being; regardless of the fetus’s life state before birth, it will be assumed that all agree that birth “confirms”, so to speak, the life and human existence of the newborn.
Abortion is a historically controversial practice, igniting intense debate over the legality of the procedure. Opposition to the Supreme Court Decision of Roe v Wade often reference the morality of the issue, however their perspective and understanding is limited. A young mother with a promising future implements a different moral lens than the typical politician. Although there are several moral theories applicable, a utilitarian or Kantian lens is most appropriate. These theories are multifaceted, and while Kantian theory would superficially oppose a termination, both lenses provide moral justification for the abortion.
The debate about the legality of abortion involves debating the legal status of the fetus. If the fetus is a person, anti-choice activists argue, then abortion is murder and should be illegal. Even if the fetus is a person, though, abortion may have justified as necessary to women’s body self-govern but that wouldn’t mean that abortion is automatically ethical. Perhaps the state can’t force women to carry pregnancies to term, but it could argue that it is the most ethical choice.
Warren’s thesis is that fetuses are not persons and since only persons have full moral rights and person-like beings have a right to life in particular, fetuses do not have a right to life. She argues that fetuses are not persons because they lack the basic qualifying traits of personhood or moral humanity. She also believes that the rights of actual persons will always override the rights of potential persons and that there should be no restrictions on when an abortion must occur by. Her argument is a direct response to Noonan’s thesis which is that fetuses are humans and therefore have human rights.
Before the premises are argued for, the following assumptions must be made. I will follow the same assumptions that Judith Thompson made in her paper. These assumptions are that a fetus is considered a human and that this argument will exclude the extreme circumstances such as rape. Therefore, this paper will focus solely on consensual sex and the morals of abortion following such intercourse, even in the case of dangers to the mothers’ life.
Marry Anne Warren and Don Marquis present arguments in favor of and in opposition to the moral permissibility of aborting a pregnancy. Both raise important points, but I am not fully convinced by either argument. Warren proposes a justification for allowing abortion based on the idea of a moral community. According to this view, moral agents have an exclusive or at least preferential obligation to those entities that meet the criteria for membership in the moral community, and their rights should never be violated for the sake of an entity that is not a member. The criterion Warren chooses is personhood, which entails one or more of the characteristics of sentience, communication, reason, emotion, and so on. The essential point of Warren’s
Hare starts his argument by putting the question ‘Is a fetus a person?’ and determining the properties that the fetus have. Hare believes that we cannot assume that a fetus is a person because it is uncertain what we mean by person and it is clear that a fetus is not a person and moreover he focusses on the properties of the fetus. For Hare these properties are; if the pregnancy will result, then the baby will develop and survive becoming an adult. And, properties in which the fetus will have suffered, then abortion is wrong, but he gives an example in such case that the baby has a disease or an abnormality and therefore
Abortion is one of the most controversial issues today. It has become a question of not only ethics, but morals. In the 1973 case of Roe v Wade the Supreme Court ruled that a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy by abortion within the first six months of the pregnancy. However, conservative Presidents have changed the legislation enough to allow states to restrict abortion in various ways (Practical Ethics, Peter Singer). In the following paper, I will summarize the views on abortion of Pope John Paul II and philosopher, Peter Singer. These two men have very conflicting opinions about abortion.
Whether or not abortion is permissible has held controversy for several years. Many people believe it is impermissible to have an abortion because the fetus is a person, therefore, it is murder. Judith Thomson proposes that abortion is permissible. With both sides, there comes several different objections. I will argue against Thomson’s argument that abortion is permissible and show that it is, in fact, impermissible.
Should abortion be allowed in the United States? If so, then under what circumstances? Abortion has been one of the most heatedly debated topics in the U.S. for more than a century. This paper explores the history and international use of abortion, as well as the empirical and moral claims made by both sides of the issue. We will also examine the key positions taken on abortion and look at those affected by it. Based on extensive research and analysis, this paper will recommend that the government increase abortion funding and availability.
Abortion may be one of the most ongoing disagreements throughout time, some may consider this act as wrong such as specified in this quote by Mother Teresa: “The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me? There is nothing between.” Abortion not only murders an unborn child, causes guilt for the mother’s decision to end her pregnancy and may cause problems to the mother’s health; abortion is irreversible that child will not have life. Some women having an abortion can suffer from damage to the uterus, internal bleeding including having pieces of the baby left inside her body causing difficulties. By means of ending the pregnancy, the mother may
“Is abortion moral or immoral?” We yet have not acquired an answer to this question. Infer by that, we defend about the nature and the moral status of the fetus. In the other word, should we or should we not? Don Marquis as well as Bonnie Steinbock embraces with the argument of their own, which point out the morality of abortion.
Women may have an abortion for a variety of reasons, but in general they choose abortion because a pregnancy at that time is in some way wrong for them. “Abortion is the removal of a fetus from the uterus before it is mature enough to live on its own” (Kuechler 1996). When this happens spontaneously we call it a miscarriage. Induced abortion is brought about deliberately by a medical procedure that ends pregnancy. Legal abortion, carried out by trained medical practitioners, is one of the most common and safest surgical procedures. “About 1.5 million American women choose to have induced abortions each year. Less than 1% of all abortion patients experience a major complication associated with the procedure” (Kuechler 1996).