Persuasive Essay On Abortion

Many individuals fail to understand the sheer magnitude of bloodshed, tribulation, and despair legalized abortion has initiated into the human experience – both in the United States and worldwide. Far more human lives have been violently ended by this immoral decision than any other war or genocide in history. It is one of the most controversial issues in today’s society. Abortion is the intentional decision to murder a human fetus by chemical, medical or surgical procedures. Those who support the rights of abortion argue that women should be able to decide what can be done to their bodies, yet the unborn baby inside a woman is a living being, and terminating that pregnancy is the equivalent of murder. These innocent children should not be held responsible for your mistakes. Don’t terminate pregnancy now, because you may not have children in the future at all.

Abortion has been one of the biggest controversies of all time. Many people believe it is 100% wrong and even consider it to be murder. The definition of abortion is; “The termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to being capable of normal growth.” These pro-life believers do not support the idea of abortion and believe it should be illegal. Many of these supporters do not know that if abortion were illegal they would still be performed, unfortunately by an uneducated staff. Over 70 thousand maternal deaths occur every year because of unsafe abortions. These women die, so the idea of supporting pro-life is contradictory, this is why the nation should be pro-choice.

This essay will look at Marquis’s “future like ours” argument and challenge the premises and implications of his conclusion. I will not be considering exceptional circumstances, such as rape or major health implications, as Marquis’ focus was on general deliberate abortions. I will argue that the ideas of personhood, future-directed preferences and bodily autonomy establish a great moral difference between killing an adult and killing a foetus. In disproving Marquis’s conclusion and his counter-examples to criticisms, I will draw upon utilitarian and rights-based theories.

To put it simply, an abortion is defined as, the intentional termination of a pregnancy most often preformed before the third trimester (within weeks 1-28). The controversy over abortions usually stems from the difficulty between individuals to agree on a set of conditions that would constitute ones’ decision, to abort as just. This issue is examined by many philosophers, particularly, Judith Thomson and Don Marquis. Both philosopher’s views loosely encompass the complex underlying beliefs of those who stand behind the “pro-life” and “pro-choice” arguments. Tomson and Marquis demonstrate the very distinctively different perspectives one could take on the issue. Don Marquis suggests that fetuses, being persons, possess the right to a “future like ours” and that it would be wrong to intentionally impede on “the life that I would have lived if I had lived out my natural lifespan” except for in “rare circumstances”. While, Tomson asserts that not all abortions are morally wrong, nor do they “violate the victim’s right to life”, and by having one that is in no way indicative that a fetus’s rights have been violated. Despite the fact that both philosophers present valid positions, and outline their key differences, Tomson goes far beyond Marquis’ efforts by illustrating that the way in which we view abortions ought to be redefined in order for one to maintain a clear perspective.

In “A Defense of Abortion”, Judith Thomson argues that, under the presupposition of fetal personhood, abortion is not always an unjust killing. She calls into question a person’s right to life and what that truly means. “If you do no kill [someone] unjustly, you do not violate his right to life” (Cahn 194), Thomson asserts, positing that a right to life is simply a right to not be killed unjustly. Her defense attempts to demonstrate that abortion in most cases, or at least not all cases, does not constitute unjust killing and therefore does not violate a fetus’ right to life (194). However, Thomson’s burglar analogy fails to accurately represent pregnancy resulting from consensual sex and therefore does not justify

In “A Defense of Abortion” written by Judith Jarvis Thomson, the author analyzes premises for which she believes that abortion should be permissible, but argues in some cases abortion should also not be allowed. Her analysis is different from most papers on this subject, because she immediately throws the argument of if the fetus is a person out the window. She calls it a “slippery slope argument”(Thomson 54). Thomson, instead, presents that a fetus does have the right to life, but she uses thought experiments that show the fetus’s right to life does not trump the mother's right to life. In this paper, I am going to discuss Thomson’s arguments, possible objections to her argument, and provide an answer for the objection using the author’s

For many years this issue of abortion has came out, giving a huge debate about it. Right now, in the United States abortion is legal but may be restricted by the states. The states have limited degree of power. Some of the laws passed by some states are the requirement of parental notification for minors, the term of pregnancy, the abortion risk information given to the patients for the procedure, etc. Abortion is becoming more pro choice. I wanted to research abortion because I didn’t really know anything about it when we had debates in class.

Judith Jarvis Thomson firmly defends abortion stating that in as much as everybody has the right to life abortion can be permitted if the mother does not want to keep the pregnancy, or in order to save a mother’s life. My argument is that Thomson’s position is insufficient and biased and fails to consider the second party involved, the unborn child; all lives matter.

The justness and morality of abortion has long been a topic of contention in the United States. In the article ‘A Defense of Abortion’ Thomson argues that abortion is morally permissible in certain circumstances even if that fetus has a right to life. This essay will serve to lay out the positions that Judith Jarvis Thomson’s article takes in the defense of abortion in certain circumstances. I will present an argument that agrees with Thomson and further justifies abortion in cases that deal with pregnancies that are a result of rape, failed contraceptives, and in procedures that are recommended to save the life of the mother.

Abortion is highly controversial and there is quite the debate over the ethics of abortion. The question is does the fetus have the same rights as an adult, so that it has the same right to not be killed. There are many debates on whether or not a fetus is human. Those who believe that there is no life related to a fetus then they believe that it has no rights. On the flip side, others may argue that abortion is the killing of an innocent human life. The question, “When does life begin?” appears over and over again throughout these debates and within cultures.Thompson believes that the question of whether a fetus have the same rights as a human being is irrelevant. Even if the fetus had all the rights of an adult human being, it would still be permissible to abort it.

Though the Supreme Court voted pro-choice in the 1973 court case of Roe v. Wade, abortion still remains a hot topic among the American population and political parties. The case was based on an argument on the 14th amendment: right to privacy, that made it the woman's decision to have an abortion. This amendment, however does not protect the liberty and privacy of the fetus, meaning, the child does not receive his or her inalienable rights until after birth. Ever since Roe v. Wade was enabled, there has been a strict division within the United States between the pro-life, and pro-choice believers. The idea of pro-choice negates the 5th amendment rights to life and liberty. What does it say about the right to kill in the constitution? Nothing. Surgically aborting an unborn child is unethical, cruel, selfish, and most importantly, it's murder.

A result of an action without consent, the fetus has no right to life and the mother is morally permissible to have an abortion, as she did not consent to grant the fetus right to her body. Anti-Abortionists such as Don Marquis believe that it is morally wrong to deny anyone a future value, and as an abortion denies the fetus a future value, it is morally impermissible. This argument assumes that the fetus’ right to a future of value is above that of a mother’s right of body integrity. Under this assumption, Marquis condemns abortion, even in cases of rape. Thomas replies with the statement that fetus’ right to life was granted without consent, and thus does not override the right a mother has concerning her own body.

Judith Jarvis Thomson has argued that a woman surely can defend her life against the threat to it posed by an unborn child, even if doing so involves its death. In her view, it cannot seriously be thought to be murder if the mother performs an abortion on herself to save her life. I will be explaining how Thomson’s arguments for this view are not compelling. I will defend the extreme view, the view that abortion is impermissible even to save the mother's life, by demonstrating that there are key points, which undermine her house analogy and by introducing concepts that are lacking in her ownership thesis. I will argue these points assuming that a fetus is a person, every person has a right to life, and therefore a fetus has a right to life.

Don Marquis’ essay, “Why Abortion is Immoral” is very different, yet similar to Thomson’s “A Defense of Abortion”. Although Marquis is opposed to the thought of abortion, he explains that it is acceptable in some cases. It is written, “It is in the same moral category as killing an innocent adult human being”. The reasons given for abortion to be acceptable are that the pregnancy or childbirth is life threatening to the mother, abortion before implantation, or abortion after a rape (pg 475). Thomson also views rape and the illness or death as a result of pregnancy or birth as acceptable reasons for a woman to have an abortion. It is obvious that if a woman did not consent to become pregnant and it was out of her control, she should be able to make the decision as to what to do with her body. In the case of the pregnancy causing harm to the mother is also reasonable because if the mother was to die during birth, could the child be promised a life equal to that of what they would have had with their mother? Marquis talks about how the death of any human being is the “greatest loss” because that person loses their whole future (pg 476). They do not receive the same chance at life as a person who

A human life is a sacred creation. Each individual existence is unique, bearing its own complexities and challenges, highs and lows. It is something to be respected and something that ought to be granted certain dignities in the eyes of the law. This ideal environment is not a reality in every area of society, however. In the current state of abortion rights, the life of a human being is tossed aside and ignored. The life of a human being is persecuted and deemed worthless by the government that should be protecting it. The rights of a human being are stripped away. In the issue of abortion, the potential life of the fetus is seen as more valuable than the already existing life of the woman. The life of a mother, a daughter, a sister is seen as meaningless if she does not bear a child she has conceived. The rights of a woman over her own body are lost to the fetus growing inside of her. She is seen as a mere container for the child and society is forcing her to fulfill her biological duty even if it is potentially harmful to her personal well-being or happiness. In the current state of abortion rights, a human life is not being given the reverence it deserves and that is the life of the woman.