Abortion is Morally Wrong Essay - 1752 Words | Bartleby
I once ventured upon some adolescent boys getting ready to torture ayoung cat by throwing it into a mass of sticker bushes to see how it woulddo. I interceded on behalf of the cat. The main antagonist, a fairly largeboy, was displeased by my intervention and said that I had no businessinterfering with their fun. His main comment was that it was his cat andhe could do anything he wanted to it. I take it that this is a form ofthe privacy (and private property) argument, that this was a private matterand I had no right to intervene. I did not at the time see fit to arguethe merits of the case on that particular issue and instead gave him othergrounds which I thought might appeal to him. I suggested that if he couldnot see any reason to see the similarity between the cat's feelings andhis own that I might help him see the relationship in this instance betweenthe cat's well-being and his own. This convinced him for the time at leastthat harming the cat might not be in his own best interest. But it occurredto me later that the cat's being his cat gave him not less responsibilityfor its well-being, as he seemed to think, but gave him even more responsibilityfor its well-being. In general, the owners of pets and the parents of youngchildren are held responsible for at least certain minimal standards oftheir charges' welfare. Recently enacted laws in a number of states requiringparents to have their children in car restraints while the car is in motionis another example of balancing parental privacy with child welfare onthe side of the welfare rather than privacy. And it does seem to me, havingseen so many parents who dangerously, carelessly, and recklessly allowtheir children to ride standing up on the front seat (as if to give theirheads better aim at the windshields in case of sudden braking or frontalcollision) that the innocent child should have a champion in the stateif the parents do not fulfill reasonable obligations. In general, a womandoes have some responsibility toward her children and even toward her unbornfetus. How much is open to discussion. And in general parents cannot justifablytreat their children any way they would want to, especially if that meansharming or killing the child, or risking its life or health needlessly.I would expect there to be made similar cases for fetal rights, thoughjust how much, and whether it could preclude abortion or not, and underwhat circumstances, is what is at issue. The point here is that privacy,by itself, is insufficient to morally justify abortion and/or other sortsof fetal harm -- regardless of the Supreme Court's legal decision.
Is Abortion Morally Right or Wrong Essay
3. The argument based on "privacy" is probably reallyan argument meant to be based on, or better based on, personal liberty,self-determination, or personal autonomy. It is usually said that "whata woman does with her own body" is a personal matter or a private matteror her own business; or that it is a private (privileged) matter betweenher and her physician. Of course, liberty and self-determination and autonomyin a free society are highly valued; but they are not unlimited rightsnor totally unrestricted. There are many moral and legal, as well as socialand economic, restrictions on what people are permitted to do. The issueis whether the right to an abortion in general, or in particular kindsof cases, is the kind of right that ought not to be restricted or regulated,or whether it is the kind of right that can or ought to be legitimatelyrestricted or regulated in some way.
However, the genetic bond, particularly for women, seems to be veryimportant psychologically. While thinking about the ideas for this paper,I spoke with two women who seemed to me to have inconsistent views aboutone's (natural or moral) rights concerning their genetic offspring. Thesewomen saw no reason that an unmarried father (or father-to-be) shouldhave any say about whether the fetus is aborted or not, how the pregnantwoman should take care of her own health and well-being, and whether thebaby should be offered for adoption or not. Yet they thought a woman shouldbe able to decide that an embryo she does not want to carry (which couldfeasibly be transplanted into the womb of a woman who wants to rear it)could be terminated instead of transplanted. These women seemed to thinkthat there is some more important relationship, and responsibility andrights, between a mother and child than between a father and child -- evenif the genetic mother is not the one who will carry the embryo in her bodyuntil it is born. Unlike me, they think the physical aspects of pregnancyare not what sometimes creates an earlier emotional attachment not opento fathers, but that something does at a female genetic level or very earlygestation time for a woman. One of these women, an attorney, even saw noreason why a man should have any determination about abortion even if hewere forced, say at gunpoint, to have intercourse with some woman who wantedto have a child. It seems to me this kind of distinction between a geneticmother's rights and a genetic father's rights is unwarranted in a casewhere the genetic mother does not have to be, or is not, the gestationmother.
Persuasive Essay Abortion: The Moral Dilemma
I am simply interested in this paper in the moral arguments about abortionwithout regard to whether they might also support some particular Scripturalinterpretations or not. This paper will deal, not with unsubstantiatedand unargued, non-reasoned claims for ethical principles based on authority,but with evidence that is given either for abortions in certain cases oragainst them in others, evidence that is meant to be logical and also compassionateand understanding. Such a method is not infallible, but the mistakes itengenders are at least correctable by use of the method itself. Logic isalways open to other logical rebuttal; and compassion is always open tocompassion that encompasses more correct understanding. The nature of arational, intelligent, compassionate ethical discussion gives the hopethat if error of either sort is made, it can be discovered and correctedby further thought, understanding of experience, and discussion. Presentpolitical and judicial rhetoric and decisions do not give me that hope.I am also not given that hope by some seemingly entrenched, unreflective,and irrationally dogmatic religious views or by some of the equally unreflectiveand irrationally dogmatic supposedly "liberal" or "modern" views. Neitherthe total "pro-life" nor the total "pro-choice" side seems to me to havea monopoly on the right or even on being reasonable on this issue. In thispaper I also wish to point out the lack of merit, and sometimes even thetotal lack of relevance, of some of the more politically popular or well-publicizedarguments on both sides of the abortion issue. I think there are betterand more relevant considerations that can shed more light on the subject.
do not “know” that abortion is morally right
Of course, not all abortion advocates base their justification of abortion on a lack of personhood on the part of the preborn human. Some, such as Judith Jarvis Thomson, argue instead that even if the fetus is a person, abortion can still be morally justified. Certainly, such a justification, if valid, would make a much more forceful case for abortion than any attempt to base it on a lack of personhood. Hence, I will now proceed to examine Judith Thomsons main argument in her essay A Defense of Abortion.