The
demand for abortion has increased significantly in recent history, leading to
rising in the number of sexual harassment to female which then leads to
abortion. Abortion itself defined as an intentional removal (or intentional
action to cause the removal) of a fetus from the womb of a human female.
Abortion happens at the request of or through the agency of the mother; it
basically results in the death of the fetus (csus.edu, no date.). Abortion has
been, and always be one of the most controversial issues in today’s society and
in the future around the world. People have always curious to know whether it
is ethical to abort a fetus; acceptable (morally permissible) or unacceptable
(morally impermissible). Some part of views that are related to abortion makes
this topic extremely controversial; where some people believe that abortion is
unacceptable under any circumstances and it will never be acceptable – while
others believe that under certain circumstances, it is acceptable. However,
some people usually depend on a maximum age after which the fetus must not be
aborted, regardless of the circumstances (bbc.co.uk, no date.). The issue of
abortion relies upon the subject of personhood; nearly everybody trusts that a
person has a special moral status: ending the life of someone else, with the
exception of extreme conditions which are a genuine sin (Resnikoff, 2013). At
some time in some certain places, abortion has been allowed in some cases
depend on the reason; abortion for the sake of the mother’s health (including
her mental health), pregnancy resulted in a crime (rape, incest, child abuse),
the child have unacceptable quality of life (physical handicaps, genetic
problems, mental defects), social reasons (poverty, mother unable to cope with
a child – eg: mother too young), and as a matter of government policy (way of
regulating population size) (bbc.co.uk, no date.). Some people agree that
abortion for the sake of the mother’s health can be morally acceptable only if
there’s a real risk of serious damage to the mother, however, abortion for
social reasons are usually least acceptable to society (bbc.co.uk, no date.).
Many views of abortion argue that abortion is both acceptable and unacceptable.
Additionally, philosophers have attempted to elaborate in order to explain
whether abortion is morally permissible or not.

 

There
are at least 3 views of abortion: extreme conservative view, extreme liberal
view, and moderate view which is lie between both extremes. Conservatives
believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets,
individual liberty, traditional American values and strong national defense
(Student News Daily, 2010). This view believes that the role of government
should be to supply freedom to people in order to pursue their own goals. In
abortion, conservative view stated that human life begins at conception and
abortion is the murder of human being (Kamide, no date.). Conservative view
believes that an unborn baby, as a living human being, has different rights
from the mother. On the other hand, liberal view believes in government action
in order to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all (Student News Daily,
2010). It is the duty of the government to reduce and protect social ills as
well as civil liberties, individual and human rights. In abortion, liberal view
believes that a woman has the right to decide what they want to do with their
body (Kamide, no date.). Additionally, a fetus is not a human life, that’s why
it has different rights than the mother. The moderate view of abortion relies
on the middle of both conservative and liberal. In general, moderate view
stands for a “third way” between both extremes, an adjustment that aims to give
limited satisfaction to values in controversy: abortion would thus be
acceptable in performed under certain conditions that both sides find it reasonable
to accept (Millán, 2009). However, to understand this specific debate, we need
to hold up in mind that the disagreement lies to a significant extent in which
each side discovers sensible to accept, on whether the conditions one wishes to
come at are examples of rationality. A moderate view looks to discover a
balance between the different values at stake: where it tries to fit the
privilege of the woman to choose with that of the fetus to live. This can be
accomplished in two ways: firstly, by legitimizing a paradigm on which the
state of an individual in development can be arbitrated, and thus the privilege
to live (Millán, 2009). As per this, the state of an individual and the right
to life are not obtained at the moment of conception, with the union of an ovum
and a sperm, yet at a later moment during the process of pregnancy. In the
event that we could decide this minute, it would empower us to settle a term
for moral tolerance as regards abortion. Secondly, by recognizing the presence
of both rights, and building up a procedure of adjusting in order to empower us
to assess which right takes priority over the other.

 

For
many philosophers, regardless to whether it is morally permissible to end a
pregnancy, and at what stage end may happen, depends totally upon the nature
and good status of the fetus itself. It is guaranteed that the moral status of
the fetus must be resolved before we can resolve the claimed struggle that lies
at the center of the core of the abortion debate: between the woman seeking for
the abortion – her wants, interests and rights – and the fetus, with whatever
interests and rights it has. In 1971, a moral philosopher called Judith Jarvis
Thomson made a comparable claim in “A Defense of Abortion.” She argued that
abortion could, in any case, be ethically permissible regardless of whether
“the fetus has just turned into a human individual before birth,” (Resnikoff,
2013). In the light of the fact that “the right to life comprises not in the
right to not be executed, but instead in the right not to be murdered
shamefully.” If a woman ends the life of her own fetus in a way that can be
considered just, at that point nobody’s entitlement to life has been violated.
The “famous violinist”, “people seeds” and the chocolate example are three of a
series though experiments of Judith Jarvis Thomson’s on her argument of
abortion. The “famous violinist” encourages Thomson to make this point. The
situation is particularly similar to a famous soccer scenario, we are kidnapped
and attached to a well-known violinist with a fatal kidney issue, whose
survival relies upon his remaining connected to our circulatory system (Wilhelm,
no date.). The violinist uncontroversially has a right to life (and this could
possibly suggest that no third party has a right unplug the violinist) yet,
Thomson trusts we would concur, he doesn’t have a right to the utilization of
our body and henceforth we have a right to unplug ourselves. Thomson concludes
that in this situation, you have the moral right to detach from the violinist. In
any case, disconnecting from the violinist will execute him. So, it is
permissible to murder the violinist. However, the violinist has a right to
life. So, it’s not generally impermissible to execute something with a right to
life. However, there are some problems with Thomson’s argument. To begin with,
her reaction to the thought experiment is not instinctively obvious. A
stringent moral code might just expect you to save the violinist’s life, and
Thomson doesn’t enough clarify why that code is unreasonable instead of only
demanding. Second, by tolerating that a fetus may be a fully human individual,
both Thomson and Williams may yield excessively to the pro-life position. For
short, “A Defense of Abortion” by Judith Jarvis Thomson stated 3 things: 1. the
“famous violinist” has no right, in many cases, to the woman’s body; 2. Unborn
persons whose presence is a result of rape, have no right to the utilization of
their mothers’ bodies; 3. The woman does not automatically have a special
relationship to the fetus. There is a distinction between having a right to
life and having a right to be given help necessary to continue living. Because
the violinist has a right to life, this does not imply that he has a right to
your kidneys. Also, in light of the fact that the fetus has a right to life,
this does not imply that the fetus has a right to utilize the mother’s body to
gestate.

 

On
the other hand, Don Marquis’ argument on abortion was different from Thomson’s.
Marquis aims to demonstrate that abortion is morally on a standard with the
killing of an adult human; that is, he tries to demonstrate the aborting a
fetus is, aside from exceptional circumstances, a serious moral wrong
(Cengage.com, no date.). Before laying the basis of his own argument, Marquis
quickly surveys the landscape of the philosophical debate over the morality of
abortion. He recommends that in light of the fact that the typical arguments
put forth by anti-abortionists and pro-choicers are had of symmetrical benefits
and weaknesses, the debate between the two camps appears to be immovable.
Whereas anti-abortionists very convincingly show that fetuses commonly show
many of the same features as adult humans, pro-choicers convincingly argue that
fetuses do not have the sorts of highlights that are for the most part taken to
be vital for consideration in the moral community. Each side at that point
attempts to argue for a rule that clarifies the misleading quality of executing
to such an extent that it renders a verdict favorable to their own view on the
theme of abortion. The problem, Marquis proposes, is that principles on which
anti-abortionists depend are excessively wide, whereas principles on which
pro-choicers depend are two narrows. In light of all of this, Marquis suggests
embracing another methodology. He will likely first recognize what clarifies
why murdering an adult is normally wrong, and afterward to check whether that
reason can be connected to fetus removal (Cengage.com, no date.). In the event
that it can, we will have found a solid reason that abortion is morally wrong.
What isn’t right with murdering, Marquis, argues, is that it dispossesses the
victim of something important. Specifically, it denies the victim of everything
that she would have esteemed later in the future had her life not been ended
too soon. Killing isn’t right since it takes away the value of those, and many
other, experiences. Marquis argues that there are a few attractions to clarify
the wrongness of killing along these lines. In any case, it can represent our
belief that murder is one of the worst of crimes (since it dispossesses the
victim of so much value), and it coordinates well with attitudes that the
terminally ill have toward their future deaths. Beyond this, the theory isn’t
speciesist in that it doesn’t subjectively make the murdering of a natural
human of special moral import. Moreover, Marquis trusts, the hypothesis renders
credible judgment in an assortment of ethical issues; it can enable us to
perceive any reason why active euthanasia is sometimes permissible, and it can
specifically represent the wrongness of infanticide in a way that is not
argumentatively awkward (Cengage.com, no date.). In short, Don Marquis’
argument stated 2 things: 1. The pro-choice approach of personhood is
problematic because there is no good reason to think that psychological feature
should make a moral difference; 2. What makes killing wrong is the loss of the
victim’s future.

We will write a custom essay sample on
The people usually depend on a maximum age
Specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page


order now

 

Unlike
Don Marquis and Judith Jarvis Thomson, Mary Anne Warren state that abortion is
morally permissible. Warren state that a fetus is basically not a person; which
leads that a fetus doesn’t have a fully moral right
(Faculty.philosophy.umd.edu, no date.). The term ‘full moral rights’ are only
applied to and only a person. Therefore, a fetus does not have full moral
rights since it’s not a full-shaped person. Moreover, a woman has their rights
to protect her own health, happiness, freedom, and even her life, by ending an
unwanted pregnancy, will always override whatever right to life it may be
suitable in refer to a fetus, even a fully developed one. So, a pregnant woman
basically has a moral right to do an abortion. 
Warren believes that she can restrict child murder while allowing most
abortion. Warren’s reaction concentrates on the similarity amongst infants and
person. It isn’t only that infants are members of our species, yet rather that
they fulfill three of the six criteria of a personhood. Although this may be
true, Joel Feinberg on “The Argument of Potentiality” maintains that there
might be situations where it is illegal or wrong to have an abortion even when
the fetus does not have any rights or is not yet a moral person (Gordon, no
date.). To elaborate his main argument – the rights don’t lay on the potential
capacity of having them – Feinberg considers Stanley Benn’s argument which has
been modified as: supposed a person X is President of the USA and accordingly
is Commander in Chief of the army, at that point, person X had the potential
capacity to end up become the President of the USA and Commander in Chief of
the armed force in the years before his rule. Yet, it does not follow that: the
person X has the power to command the armed force as potential President of the
USA. Subsequently, it appears to be inaccurate to get the real rights from the
uncovered potential capacity to have legal rights at a later time. It ought to
be included that Benn – in spite of his criticism on the argument of potential
rights – likewise guarantees that there are valid considerations which don’t
allude to the discussion of rights and may give conceivable reasons against
child murder and late abortions even when fetuses and infants are uncivilized
creatures with no personhood.

 

The
moral debate in regards to abortion concentrates on two particular issues: 1.
Regardless of whether a human fetus has a right to life, and, if so, 2. Whether
the rights of the mother ever revoke the fetus’ rights. Pro-life arguments
defined as the duty or commitment of the government to save all human life
paying little mind to intent, viability or quality of life concerns
(Slideshare.net, 2014). Thus, pro-lifers argue that the same is valid for
abortion, in light of the fact that fetuses are persons – henceforth the term
“pro-life.” (Resnikoff, 2013).  The
pro-life argument stated that normal individuals have the right to live, which
the fetus is a particular human from the moment of conception. Additionally,
unless the woman’s life is in danger, a woman has the responsibility not to
kill their unborn babies. Since pro-lifers believe that murder ought to be
unlawful in a moral society. On the other hand, pro-choice argument defined as
the view that women have the rights to end the baby (Slideshare.net,
2014).  Most pro-choicers, in contrast,
would argue that fetuses are not a person until the point when they achieve a
specific late phase of improvement, either the time of birth or some time
preceding to it. Pro-choicers believe that regular individuals have rights to
their bodies as long as they don’t hurt others. The fetus is not a “human” to
the point that it born and women don’t have the responsibility be pregnant
without wanting to, and they can alter their minds. Therefore, women have the
rights to end their pregnancy. A woman has a right to make a decision that
involves her body. Especially when the pregnancy was the result of hard cases
such as rape, incest, etc. Major issues of abortion-right to life, right to
liberty, right to security involve risk to life. Which leads to the child will
be in a disabled condition and have a low quality of life. Whereas fetus is an
individual with a fundamental right to life. Every child is a wanted child, no
child is unwanted. Therefore, the unborn child has the right not to be killed.

 

To sum up, a
pro-choice position on abortion tights does not involve that abortion is
necessarily a right or morally neutral act. Abortion brings a loss that can
cause feelings of regret and sadness. Yet, once in a while the necessary
actions that could enable these cells to form into a person would fundamentally
affect (in a negative way) the life of someone who is already living and are
therefore permissibly declined. The activity of abortion is not really filthy;
however, one might say that descent activity can result in a loss. Marquis
guaranteed that for a similar reason it isn’t right to murder an adult human
(their loss of a valuable future), it is likewise wrong to murder a fetus (with
a valuable “future-like-ours”). However, in the event that we can’t consider
abortion to be a demonstration of killing, then how can Marquis’ argument hold?
The least he could do is change it by likewise expressing that it is prima
facie wrong to force a woman to give a fetus incubation unit in the event that
she is not willing to do so. Thomson would be fulfilled by this determination.
Many may think little is excessively indulgent on her limitations, making it
impossible to reasonable abortion. Nonetheless, as if she gave a solid argument
to her view that sees abortion as the ending of gestational assistance yet at
the same time views burgeoning human life as one that ought to be regarded. In
any case, this respect-worthy status does not give the fetus a significant good
status. There are obviously situations where it isn’t right to abort, however
needing to end gestation for reasons in view of its affections can make
abortion a permissible act. Overall, there ought to be as much respect for a
woman’s right to decline the affection of growth as there is respect for
burgeoning human life. Abortion is not legal nor illegal, it somehow ethical
and also unethical. Not an alleviation as the greater part of them feels so. In
any case, it is still a controversial and a debatable issue. 

x

Hi!
I'm Dora!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Click here