Michelle Nunn Abortion Analysis

In Judith A. Thomson’s article, ‘A defense of abortion’ Thomson defends her view that in some cases abortion is morally permissible. She takes this stance even with the premise that fetuses upon the moment of conception are in fact regarded as persons. However one criticism of her argument would be that there is a biological relationship between mother and fetus however there is no biological relationship between you and the violinist. Having this biological relationship therefore entails special responsibility upon the mother however there is no responsibility in the case of the violinist. Thomson argues against those who are opposed to abortion with her violinist thought experiment.

Judith Thomson defends abortion by first assuming all fetuses have a right to life, and then by giving exceptions to permit abortion. These exceptions include the mother’s life being at risk, rape, incest, ignorance of how you become pregnant, and contraceptive failure, which all in her opinion relieves you of the responsibilities of pregnancy, making it permissible to abort the fetus. To help defend her argument, Thomson uses a variety of interesting analogies.

The issue of abortion is one of the most sensitive and controversial issues faced by modern societies. This issue leads to topics of whether abortion is right or wrong, if it is the actual killing of a person, and what actually defines the moral status of a fetus. In this paper, I will be arguing against Bonnie Steinbock, who believes that abortions are morally acceptable. So I will be supporting the view that abortions are not morally acceptable.

Leslie R. Reagan a professor of history, medicine, and women’s studies at the University of Illinois, brings attention and helps articulate the myth, that if abortion is made illegal then we could end all abortions. Reagan traced the history of abortion in her book, and reminds individuals that the law is not fixed, but, rather fluid. She mentions that in the early history of abortion, abortions were widely accepted and done in homes and offices of physicians and midwives. During the 1930’s this begin to shift and abortions were often done, in hospitals and clinics rather than homes and offices. However, in the 1940s, the acceptance of abortion began to decline and new methods and ways of controlling abortion were put into place. She mentions that, “As authorities prosecuted abortion with the same urgency as communism, prosecutors and the police systematically raided abortion clinics, publicly interrogated women who had sought abortions, and humiliated both clients and abortion providers in the courtroom” (Joffe, et al., 2000). When abortion become

One major part of her health care policy is that she seeks to improve rather than remove the Affordable Care Act (Clinton). The ACA has given many people the chance to have insurance, especially those who would have never had a chance due to preexisting conditions. It has also allowed parents to keep their children on their insurance up to age 26. Clinton recognizes the importance of the ACA, but she also sees rising costs that make it very difficult for many Americans to afford insurance. To combat rising costs, Clinton wants to increase tax credits and get insurance companies to seek enrollment more intensely which would lower costs in regards to the ACA (Clinton).

Republican Congressman Mike Moon (R-Missouri) posted a disturbing video on Monday promoting his views on abortion.

In Mary Anne Warren’s “The Abortion Issue,” children are not persons in the empirical sense. Warren believes that prior to a certain point in a pregnancy, the child does not have “the capacity to understand” the ramifications of what an abortion would be, therefore the abortion does not infringe upon the rights of the unborn fetus. She states that: “…in the ways that matter from a moral point of view, human fetuses are very unlike human persons, particularly in their early months of development”(152). In essence, personhood as defined by Warren can only come after the first trimester. Before that time, the fetus does not have the sentience that would make it a person. Warren’s main criteria for

This essay will explore the morality of abortion through the use of Don Marquis’ theories, as well as comparing them to Judith Thomson in order to effectively explain and present my argument that the decision of abortion is dependent on the growth of personhood. From this, I will present my belief that abortion is morally incorrect and should not be permitted except in extreme circumstances. I intend to achieve this through supportive arguments as well as counter-arguments provided by these given authors.

Marquis contends that abortion is impermissible, he expresses that executing adults isn't right since it treacherously denies them from their potential future and fetus removal is denying the fetus of their future, in this manner fetus removal is impermissible. "The loss of one's life is one of the best misfortunes one can endure." (p. 367). He goes one to state, that it is indecent however there are uncommon situations where it may not be. In agreement to Marquis contention, I trust that abortion is unethical in light of the fact that the baby can possibly be a feasible piece of society, the embryo is a living individual, has a privilege to life.

In Thomson’s defence of abortion she argues that abortion is permissible when a mother’s life is not at risk. Working on her interpretation of the secular conservative argument, she first assumes that the premise of a foetus being a person is true, then moves onto the second premise, that a person has the right to life. Analysing what the right to life means, she first looks at the idea that the right to life is the right to have the bare minimum a person needs in order to survive. She quickly rebuts this by providing the Henry Fonda analogy and the violinist analogy. Both of these show that just because a person needs something to survive, like Henry Fonda’s cool hand or another person’s kidneys, a person doesn’t have the right to take it. With this in mind she modifies the argument so that the right to life is the right not to be killed. This she rebuffs with the violin analogy, noting that by pulling the plugs you would in effect be killing the violinist. While the violinist didn’t have the right to your kidneys, it could be argued that he does have the right for you not to intervene. However these are your kidneys, and you should not be forced to allow him continued use. Having ascertained that the right to life is not the right to the bare minimum needed to survive, nor the right not to be killed, she concludes that the right to life is the right not to be killed unjustly, or the

Judith Jarvis Thomson proposes her argument in her article, A Defense of Abortion. There, she explains to her readers during what circumstances is abortion justifiable. Thomson uses the argument by analogy strategy to explain to her readers her argument. She tries to reach her conclusion by comparing it to similar cases. The point she is trying to make is to tell her readers that abortion is morally permissible only in some cases, like when the mother has been a victim of rape, when contraception has failed or when the pregnancy is of danger to the mother. She explains to her readers that abortion is justifiable only in some cases, not all. Thomson uses the case of a violinist to show her readers that abortion is morally permissible when a woman has been victim of rape. She also uses the people seeds story as an analogy to explain that abortion is morally acceptable when contraception has failed. Thomson also mentions the right to life in her article. She uses the right to life to explain to us that it is morally justifiable for the mother to abort the fetus when the fetus is endangering the mother’s life. In order to help her readers understand the notion of right to life she is trying to propose to us, she does so by using the Henry Fonda example. In my point of view, I find most of Thomson’s analogies irrelevant to the argument she is trying to make. I will explain to my readers why I find Thomson’s analogies irrelevant.

Americans recently elected a new president. As some people expected, there have been some changes made to our health care bill, government funding, tax reform and more changes are proposed but have not passed yet. Donald Trump, a new American president, have a different opinion about health care structure and funding in the United States than previous president Barak Obama. Some of the reforms proposed by Trump since he took over the office, such as Obamacare repeal, failed to pass earlier this year. According to Caldwell (2017), “Senate Republicans failed to pass a pared-down Obamacare repeal bill early Friday on a vote of 49-51 that saw three of their own dramatically break ranks”. A social institution,

October 16, 1916 was the day that Planned Parenthood was founded. Over the years, this nonprofit organization has grown in more ways than one. When abortion was legalized, Planned Parenthood then began to administer these abortions and give more information towards this service. Many people refer to Planned Parenthood as an abortion clinic because of how many they administer and because that is what they are mostly known for. Abortion has gradually grown more common and is seen as an action that you shouldn’t be ashamed of, when it used to be illegal. My question is, how many women go to Planned Parenthood not expecting to get an abortion, and leave with the idea that it would be a better choice to abort the child? If Planned Parenthood wants

As early as 1550 B.C., Egyptians were performing abortions. Egyptians documented the techniques they used to perform abortions and by the Middle Ages, the concept of abortion had spread globally (PRB). Knowing the idea, of terminating a pregnancy, was being performed in 1550 B.C., the number of babies lost to this horrific death will never truly be known. Since 1969, the CDC started documenting the numbers of legal abortions obtained in the United States. Roe vs. Wade was the infamous court case that made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, in 1973, that assisted abortion in becoming completely legal. The United National Library of Medicine published that since that day in 1973 abortion rates peaked but remained continuous through the

The controversy within the biomedical ethics topic, abortion, has two main proponents. The first is the view against abortion, also known as pro-life. The other view is rooted upon the belief of being pro-choice, or basically for abortions. These two different views are like two mathematical principles, in that although these two views have many differences, they also have larger similarities in the background. For example, when pro-choice activists support abortions due to unwanted pregnancies, the activists are not rallying behind the idea of sexual incompetency (pregnancies due to lack of birth control). Rather, they are supporting the idea that women have the right to choose what to do with their own bodies. In order to understand