The fetus may be a human life form but it hardly seems to be a person in the ordinary sense of the notion and thus has no corresponding basic right to live.
The fetus is by virtue of his genetic code a human life form but this does not mean that this would be sufficient to grant it legal and moral rights. Could the innocent attacker have been avoided?
If there are none, the whole line of reasoning would "hang in the air" so that one could also easily argue for the right to live for cats and dogs. Unicellular Zygote Proponents of the extreme conservative view claim that the morally significant break in the biological development of the fetus is given with the unicellular human zygote.
If Abortion explaining the concept mother has a child that she does not want then both she and the child may be greatly harmed; forcing the mother to continue with the pregnancy might produce a child with little chance of a happy life for itself and cause the mother much suffering as well.
For the sake of argument, Thomson assumes that 1 and 2 are true. There is no higher ethical authority which may enforce a specific moral demand. Either the argument assumes that it is wrong to kill something merely because it is homo sapien, or the argument assumes that a fetus is a member of the moral community.
What can be said of her decision? Depending on what nation, state and county you live in, you will be subject to different laws. This is not what we do when we decide to have a child.
A pregnancy is either deliberate or not. Nonhuman animals would lie outside of the contract because they lack the capacities necessary for understanding the contract and meaningfully agreeing to be bound by it.
However, both English and Marquis would point out that just because something is a non-person does not mean that it is not an object of moral concern.
An analysis can be mistaken, and in fact each of the analyses given above has been criticized by some philosophers and each has also been defended by others. It does not follow that the quasi-rights of the fetuses and the quasi-rights of the animals are identical; people would normally stress that the quasi-rights of fetuses are of more importance than that of animals.
Preliminary Distinctions One of the most important issues in biomedical ethics is the controversy surrounding abortion. But not every approach is justified. Do they rest on religious beliefs or do they depend on cultural claims? Similarly, if you enroll in a class, then you are subject to certain requirements necessary for getting a passing grade usually detailed in the syllabus.
The killing of human beings is prohibited.
In other words, if something is a square, then it has interior right angles. They lack a nervous system. Hence, abortion is not allowed since homicide is prohibited. At Birth Proponents of the liberal view contend that the morally significant break in the biological development of the fetus is at birth.
They lack a nervous system. Ultrasonic testing shows that the real first movement of the fetus is somewhere between the 6th and 9th week. Thomson concludes that i it is not true that the violinist has a right to your body, and so, by analogy ii it is not true that a fetus that is a product of rape has a right to your body, but iii there is no easy way for the anti-abortion argument to be amended to account for this.
But as we will see below the argument of potentiality is flawed since it is unclear how actual rights could be derived from the bare potentiality of having such rights at a later time.
The moral community is the set of beings with full moral rights, and consists of all and only persons. In other words, you have implicitly given your consent to be subject to those rules.
Even when rights are tied to the notion of personhood, it is clearly prohibited to kill disabled people. Today, artificial viability allows physicians to rescue many premature infants who would have previously died.
But what follows from that? Thus, according to SCT, we have no moral obligations to fetuses. If I have a prima facie reason to believe something, then I should presume it is true unless I have other evidence to the contrary that overrides the prima facie reason. The only solution may be that the survival of the fetus rests on the will of the human beings in a given moral society.- Abortion; as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary is, “the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus.
This is the definition of abortion of which I will be reviewing its ethical status.
Indiana University; Search for more papers by this author. 2. Mary B. Mahowald, who received her Ph. D. from Marquette University, has published An Idealistic Pragmatism, Philosophy of Woman, and articles on Royce, Peirce, Marx, and ethical/social issues such as feminism and jimmyhogg.com is currently Associate Professor of Philosophy at Indiana University, Indianapolis.
Jane English, “Abortion and the Concept of a Person” “ foes of abortion propose sufficient conditions for personhood which fetuses satisfy, while friends of abortion counter with necessary conditions for personhood which fetuses lack.
The ethical and practical aspects of abortion The ethical standing of induced abortion in human mothers has become an important question.
Much of what is on this page was previously in a section on my page on general ethics, but the subject is of sufficient importance to have a page of its own. A shorter version of this paper was presented to the American Philosophical Association meeting at Boston, Dec.
28, I wish to thank Susan Nicholson for her helpful comments on that paper.
Jane English persuasively argues in "Abortion and the Concept of a Person" that even if the fetus is a person, abortion may be justifiable in many cases, and if the fetus is no person, the killing of fetuses may be wrong in many cases.Download