Why Is It Wrong To Take The Life Of Unborn Children By John Piper

The paper, “The Immorality of Having Children”, by Stuart Rachels provides insight as to why it is wrong to raise children by supporting the Famine Relief Argument. Rachels argues that the cost of raising a child today, over two-hundred thousand, is so staggering that it would be better spent on donations towards famine relief projects. Throughout the paper, Rachels provides substantial arguments that emphasize the point that having children is the biggest decision that someone will ever make in their life rather than what to believe or whether to get married, and the decision should not be taken lightly. All the arguments presented are persuasive, but the argument is flawed overall because it never takes into account the importance of

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.

In her article, “The Defense of Abortion”, Judith Jarvis Thomson states an analogy involving a violinist. She first states that you are allowed to unplug yourself in the violinist scenario, second abortion after rape is analogous to the violinist scenario, therefore, you should be allowed to unplug yourself and be allowed to abort after rape (Chwang, Abortion slide 12). In this paper, I will argue that abortion is morally acceptable even if the fetus is considered a person. This paper will criticize premise two from the traditional argument against abortion string that killing innocent persons is wrong (Chwang, Abortion slide 9). Following the violinist analogy will be an objection to this analogy and my respons to them. One of the

In the article, “A Defense of Abortion” by Thomson, the author states the two points that contradict the most the right of a fetus and the right of a mother. The authors main stance, is there are abortions that are morally permissible and impermissible under certain circumstances. Thomson, makes the assumption that a fetus is a person so she can prove abortion is permissible in some situations. The author states, under three cases abortion is permissible and she further elaborates on the premise with analogies she presents. The first case is rape. She proposes an analogy, that you have been kidnapped and wake up in the hospital and they plugged you in with a violinist because it needs a kidney for nine months and if you decide to unplug it,

In the article, “Why Abortion Is Immoral”, Don Marquis begins his discussion by arguing that standard arguments or standard explanations for and against abortion are rather similar and fairly unsophisticated. He states that the debate has become “intractable.” In the sense that the two sides of the issue have become a dug-in and no one is willing to listen to the other side at this point meaning that it is an entrenched opinion. He argues that we need a fresh start to the issue a better way to think about wrongful killing, in the philosophical literature is something debated that whether wrongful killing such as murder is bad because of the effect on the murderer or the effect on the society or the effect on the victim.

In “Why Abortion is Immoral,” Don Marquis argues that abortion is immoral because it denies the victim, which is the fetus or embryo, of their right to a future-like-ours. He argues that killing is prima facie wrong, and that this logic can be applied to a fetus. In this paper, I will address the ambiguity within the future-like-ours theory, which I will refer to as the FLO theory, and argue that the fetus’ right to a future of value does not override and should not be prioritized over the right to a future of value for the fetus’ host, which is the mother.

In the article 'A Defense of Abortion' Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that abortion is morally permissible even if the fetus is considered a person. In this paper I will give a fairly detailed description of Thomson main arguments for abortion. In particular I will take a close look at her famous 'violinist' argument. Following will be objections to the argumentative story focused on the reasoning that one person's right to life outweighs another person's right to autonomy. Then appropriate responses to these objections. Concluding the paper I will argue that Thomson's 'violinist' argument supporting the idea of a mother's right to autonomy outweighing a fetus' right to life does not

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.

The ability to bring a life into the world after having carried and nurtured it in your womb for a woman is considered a gift and blessing to most, however there are times when the decision to bring a life into the world is clouded by another issue such as rape or fetal abnormalities at which point it becomes an ethical dilemma as to whether to bring that life into the world or to end the pregnancy and the life of the child. This paper will address the ethical dilemma, core beliefs, resolution, evaluation and comparison from the Christian perspective that should be considered during this process. Living life is a gift that God

How would you feel if someone took away your ability to live? Imagine not having any say in whether or not you want to have a life. Well babies don't have a choice in their mother’s womb. If a woman decides to abort her baby, they can't do anything about their life being taken away from them. Their whole future is demolished. I believe abortion is wrong when committing it for a selfish reason.

Abortion is the ending of pregnancy before birth and is morally wrong. An abortion results in the death of an embryo or a fetus. Abortion destroys the lives of helpless, innocent children and is illegal in many countries. By aborting these unborn infants, humans are hurting themselves; they are not allowing themselves to meet these new identities and unique personalities. Abortion is very simply wrong. Everyone is raised knowing the difference between right and wrong. Murder is wrong, so why is not abortion? People argue that it is not murder if the child is unborn. Abortion is murder since the fetus being destroyed is living, breathing and moving. Why is it that if an infant is destroyed a month before the birth, there is no problem,

Life is prolonged through medicine and technology. Abortion might not seem bad, but it affects the natural order (Seindensticker 2). In nature, it is not natural for a baby’s life to be taken intentionally through medicine. In the Bible, abortion is

Abortion is the main topic talked about in both The Defense of Abortion and Virtue Theory and Abortion. While the two may have similarities, they are also quite different. While one story talks about how abortion is bad and makes you look at it through different examples of things, the other describes how a righteous person sees it.

Abortion is one of the most controversial topics of all times. The definition most people associate with abortion is the termination of unwanted pregnancy. In their essay, “The Wrong of Abortion”, Patrick Lee and Robert P. George argue that intentional abortion is unjust and therefore objectively immoral no matter the circumstances. Also, they argue that “the burden of carrying the baby is significantly less than the harm the baby would suffer by being killed; the mother and father have a special responsibility to the child; it follows that intentional abortion (even in few cases where the baby’s death is an unintended but foreseen side effect) is unjust ” (24).

There are two sides to the abortion argument. Some say that the entire concept is immoral, while others argue that ethically there is nothing wrong with abortion. Mary Meehan, the author of “Why Liberals Should Defend the Unborn,” believes that abortion is immoral; she argues that the liberals willing to allow abortion will not make a stance on when a life of the fetus actually begins. Then, she backs up her argument with scientific evidence and points out that race has an effect of abortion. She also brings up that abortion can lead to discrimination against children with disabilities; after all, if a mother finds out her child is disabled and would rather not deal with it, she can simply abort the child. Amy Borovoy, the author of “Beyond Choice: A New Framework for Abortion?”, does not think abortion is immoral. She argues that women have the right to choose whether they want to terminate their pregnancy or not. In regards to the responsibility of delivering a baby, Borovoy backs up her argument by examining Japanese culture. The person that defends her argument better is Mary Meehan because she argues that liberals are unsure of their ethical stance, and pro-choice advocates discriminate the unborn but are for civil rights.