Selective Abortion Argumentative Essay

The fetus has a valuable future, just as we consider children, the retarded or mentally ill to have valuable futures, thus killing a fetus is not morally permissible. Another pro-choice argument is that the fetus has no desire to live and consequently there is no wrongness in killing. Marquis criticizes this viewpoint, as society believes it is morally wrong to kill those who have no desire to live, and those who are unconscious or suicidal (Gedge & Waluchow, 2012, p220).

Kass takes a consequentialist approach in arguing that society should act cautiously when determining policies concerning genetic abortion. The belief that all humans have a fundamental right to life is threatened by the ability to abort fetuses with an unfavorable genetic code. Genetic abortion, Kass argues, will affect the way in which our culture looks at individuals afflicted by genetic disease. The conception of disease will be shifted so that the patient will be viewed as a disease and abortion as the cure. Children who make it past detection, either by lack of available testing or error by the testing method, will be seen as defective human beings unfit to be a part of the rest of society. The distinction between “defective” and “healthy” individuals creates the precedence which provides the justification for the discrimination and elimination of other “defective” individuals. Genetic abortion may include Down syndrome and Tay-Sachs now; but may ultimately lead to the removal of members from disadvantaged social-economic groups or other “undesirables”. Kass’s argument is: 1) If genetic abortion treats individuals as defective or inferior, then it is morally wrong. 2) Genetic abortion treats individuals as defective and inferior. 3) Genetic abortion is morally

Sterilization of the developmentally disabled or the mentally retarded is an issue that has long been debated in America. Mental retardation is defined as the inability to learn normally and develop mentally. Traditionally in America if a mentally retarded person was born to a family, that family had 2 choices- take care of the child at home, or it was strongly recommended that the child was sent to a state run institution or hospital. The state institution was where this person would spend his or her entire life. Unfortunately these hospitals were often huge warehouses of people with disabilities, or mental illnesses. These hospitals offered no contact with the

In my last response to discussion question 8, in chapter 7, I said I am one who acts more upon my commonsense. I place myself and judge moral theories more as what a utilitarian would do. I feel that some of your decisions and actions should be based on what produces the best over evil, everyone considered. As I read the case study, Aborting Daughters, I instantly answer the question, “Do you think sex-selection abortions are morally permissible?” No, I do not think they are morally permissible. Not so much because of the utilitarian’s belief, which I will get into later, but because I do think a fetus is a person. And like Kantians who believe fetuses are persons, the fetus has all the rights and due all the respect that any other person has. To abort that fetus because it’s a girl (or a boy) does not give any rights to the fetus.

Leon Kass argues that genetic abortion threatens the moral equality of all human beings, not just those with genetic deficiencies. One reason why he believes this is because the baby is an innocent human being that has the right to life and as a parent you eligibly is to not cause their child harm. Abortion according to Kass is a moral issue not just for genetic deficiencies but also for all children that may be aborted. However, the flip side of this argument is that the parents may have significant reasons to abort their child.

This entails, women should have the opportunity to decide if they want to go through the mental and physical exhaustion of having a baby with disabilities such as Down Syndrome or anencephaly, both of these diseases also cost a plethora of money, something not all families have. In conclusion, every one of these problems could have been solved with the access of safe abortion clinics. Mothers shouldn't go to the extent of a clothes hanger to have an abortion, be mentally traumatized from the pregnancy they do not want, and if parents don't want a disabled child that is their choice not to

I am not the one that says that handicapped children should be aborted. No. I am the one that says it is wrong on all terms. The crazy thing is that there is at least 210,000,000 pregnancies a year, and 75,000,000 are abortions. Out of those abortions 21,600,000 of them are unsafe. Out of those unsafe abortions there have been about 8,500,000 mothers needed to have medical attention because they were either depressed, or very injured. 47,000 mothers have died in those abortions. To me that is just very depressing and sad. They say the babies can’t feel anything. That’s where they are very wrong. An unborn baby is able to feel pain at the earliest of 8 weeks, at 20 weeks the baby can feel more pain than the average human. “Some abortions can be because of rape”, no 99% of abortions have nothing to do with rape. The sad thing is that if you work out the numbers theres about 1.3 million abortions a year. 1.3 million divided by 365 days, comes out to 3,500 a day. 3,500 a day divided by 24 hours, comes out to 145 an hour. 145 divided by 1 hour(60 min), that sadly comes out to 2 per min. Coming from a Catholic background and growing up always knowing that abortion is a bad thing, I can make my own opinions on things and knowing all the facts and all the stats I can say for myself that abortion is

The topic of abortion and its legality is one that is strongly felt on both sides of the issue. This is one of the most heated arguments you can get into and if I am being fully honest I am a little nervous about publicizing my view point. But here is my research and arguments for whether abortion should be legal or not.

The status of abortion is one that will always be argued amongst the pro-life community and the pro-choice community. Abortion is the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks. (Dictionary) Jane and John are two accomplished individuals who put their careers ahead of having children. When Jane became pregnant they discovered that the baby had Down syndrome (Down syndrome is a genetic disorder that causes lifelong mental retardation, developmental delays and other problems. Down syndrome varies in severity, so developmental problems range from moderate to serious.) (Staff) They did not want have a disabled child, so they decide to abort. In this essay I will argue that it is morally wrong for Jane to have an abortion. Firstly I will present the “extreme” conservative argument to support my view, secondly I will consider one objection to my argument and finally I will provide a response to the objection.

Within his paper, Implications of Prenatal a Diagnosis for the Human Right to Life, Leo R. Kass ventures into the reasoning and consequences behind abortion due to genetic defects. The paper begins with the need for justification as to whether abortion is chosen or not. No matter what the decision there will always be an expectation for a given answer, whether a woman chooses abortion or not society will almost as if require reasoning behind the decision. Despite the opinions and differences between people, the expectation of reasoning remains constant. Not only does Kass explain that there is a need for justification, he also provides specific justifications commonly used and defended. Although it has been extensively proven that abortion cannot be justified by claiming that the fetus is merely a part

As many researchers suggested, abortion was not only a moral and legal issue, but also essentially a medical issue. Advances in medical sciences pertaining to abortion and child-birth led to new controversies in the abortion debate. For instance, particular advancements made in the case of Down syndrome raised the question that whether selective abortions aided by ultra-sonographic and nuchal translucency in the first trimester violated medical ethics (Khoshnood, 2139). The emerging cases of late-term abortions (also called partial birth abortions) owing to technological advances also also raised questions about the moral base of terminating a life that could possibly survive individually outside the mother’s womb (Miller, 497).

Purdy argues that based on purely moral grounds, not what she proposes as legal grounds, should potential parents be obligated to not conceive if they have the risk for any range of genetic diseases, including HD. There may be many different congenital afflictions that can be avoided now based on advancements in the field of genetics that should not dictate the parent’s right to conceive. In this oppositional argument, the only factor that should be considered when conceiving a child should be the parents and their own decisions, and if their choice lends way to such congenital afflictions, that should only be pinned on the natural outcome, and nothing else. In addition, by the arguments used by Purdy herself, she claims that abortion is not murder because the gestating baby has no human status yet, and therefore has no rights to their own decisions. Thus, the parent who conceives a defective child, whether they know of the defect or not, have rights to decide whether to carry the baby to term or not, as it is not the decision of the baby, but the parent who is carrying the

a. Many woman decide to get an abortion because of the doctors birth defect testing. Some birth defects include Down syndrome, sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, heart defects, neural tube defects and countless more.

On the other hand, the abortion of the preborn baby who may be disabled is nothing more than eugenics, discrimination of the basest kind. (Human Life International, 2015) The organization claimed that the preborn baby with disabilities has less of a right to live than a baby without such disabilities. However, the statement is contradicted with the first and foremost nature of humans which is the preservation of life. (TFP Student Action, 2015) Preservation of life begins with self-preservation, and extends to all humanity through domestic bonds. Abortion stops the beating heart of a growing human being. Thus, abortion cannot be claimed as a life-preserving action but instead, a life destroying-action. Besides, all children, including disabled

I believe that it is a woman’s choice whether to keep her child or not. I don’t think that anyone should interfere with the choice of the provider of the baby. Abortion is a popular topic in the debate world, but I strongly believe it shouldn’t since at the end of the day the woman is liable for her child. In this article, an unknown writer wrote, “The fact that a fetus may or may not have a beating heart, developing neurological structures, identifiable digits, or any other human quality does not equate abortion to murder. All embryonic organisms resemble a developed version of said organism. Additionally, a fetus does not have the mature, necessary neuroanatomical system required to feel pain until 26 weeks gestation. Not to mention,