But if we have the stand-off, then one might argue that we are left with a conflict of rights: a fetal right to life versus the right of a woman to control her own body.
But if we have the stand-off, then one might argue that we are left with a conflict of rights: a fetal right to life versus the right of a woman to control her own body.One might then argue that the right to life seems to be a stronger right than the right to control one's own body in the case of abortion because the loss of one's life is a greater loss than the loss of the right to control one's own body in one respect for nine months.Therefore, the right to life overrides the right to control one's own body and abortion is wrong.Tags: Essay Writing Money Makes Many ThingsHow To Write Scientific PapersRewording EssaysEssay Store LayoutEssays In French On My FamilyRoyal Commonwealth Essay 2013Essay Writing TutorEssay Assignment MacbethThe Race Card Project Six-Word EssaysOxford University Thesis Repository
I shall just assume, rather than establish, that killing you is seriously wrong.
I shall make no attempt to offer a complete ethics of killing.
(Thus, as is standard on the literature on this subject, I eliminanate spontaneous abortions from consideration.) I mean by a fetus a developing human being from p.755 time of conception to the time of birth.
(Thus, as is standard, I call embryos and zygotes, fetuses.) The argument of this essay will establish that abortion is wrong for the same reason as killing a reader of this essay is wrong.
He defends the view that, except in unusual circumstances, abortion is seriously wrong.
The purpose of this essay is to set out an argument the claim that abortion, except perhaps in instances, is seriously wrong.However, an opponent of abortion might point out that a woman's right to use her own body does not entail her right to end someone else's life in order to do what she wants with her body.In reply, one might argue that a pregnant woman's right to control her own body doesn't come to much if it is wrong for her to take any action that ends the life of the fetus within her.She supports this claim by noting that the body being used is your body, not the violinist's body.She distinguishes the right to life, which the violinist clearly has, from the right to use someone else's body when necessary to preserve one's life, which it is not at all obvious the violinist has. Do Thomson's more general theses generate a more general right to an abortion?Because the case of pregnancy is like the case of the violinist, one is no more morally obligated to remain attached to a fetus than to remain attached to the violinist. Thomson draws our attention to the fact that in a pregnancy, although a fetus uses a woman's body as a life-support system, a pregnant woman does not use a fetus's body as a life-support system.It is widely conceded that one can generate from Thomson's vivid case the conclusion that abortion is morally permissible when a pregnancy is due to rape (Warren, 1973, p. However, an opponent of abortion might draw our attention to the fact that in an abortion the life that is lost is the fetus's, not the woman's. Thomson points out that a fetus's right to life does not entail its right to use someone else's body to preserve its life.Another reason for making these exceptions allow for those cases in which the permissibility of abortion is compatible with the argument of this essay.Such cases include abortion when continuation of a pregnancy endangers a woman's life and when the fetus is anencephalic.Thus, the syllogism that generates the conclusion that fetuses have the right to life is apparently sound.On the other hand, those who believe abortion is morally permissible wish to find a narrow, but plausible, criterion for possession of the right to life so that fetuses will fall outside of it.