In the article, “Understanding Reproductive Justice: Transforming the Pro-Choice Movement,” the author, Loretta Ross, argues that while the pro-choice movement has achieved great strides in terms of acquiring and protecting legal abortion rights for women, it has done very little to address and/or challenge the structural inequalities that many women, especially women of color and lower class, have to face when simply trying to access and control their reproductive rights and destiny. Because of this, Loretta Ross proposes that we shift from using the term “pro-choice” when it comes to defining our movement to using a term that is more inclusive and representative of the realities that many non-white women have to face—this term being called “Reproductive Justice.” As was beautifully described in the beginning of her piece, Ross defines Reproductive Justice as being “the complete physical, mental, spiritual, political, social, and economic well-being of women…
In her commentary, Virginia Abernethy states about if Ann is competent or not. She explains that Ann having schizophrenia is “not conclusive evidence of incompetence to refuse medical procedure.” Virginia explains that because of Ann was psychiatrically ill and living in a mental hospital, she will not be the main person responsible for her own child’s care. Nevertheless, she states that with her competence, if Ann can refuse the abortion it is the “end of case.” I totally agree with Virginia’s comments about Ann’s decisions because at the end of the day it is her choice on having the baby or not.…
Abortion has always struck an uncommon ground between people, especially when rape or contraceptive failure is the reason for the abortion. Judith Thompson starts by explaining the Violinist argument. The argument is something like this; you wake up in the morning and you find yourself back to back with an unconscious, world famous violinist. The Violinist, come to find out, has a rare kidney disease that can be fatal if he doesn’t have a donor with the same blood type. The Society of Music Lovers looked everywhere for someone with the same blood type, and found that you were the only compatible donor in the…
In order to write this report accordingly, three internet sources and one book source have been used.…
The statement "defense of abortion", gives us an another view to a problem of abortion. Mostly, Judith Jarvis Thompson protects pro-choice side, and she says that abortion is not immoral, and that it is logically correct action. However there are a lot of anti-abortion philosophers who are not agree with it. So Judith Thompson gives an arguments to proof her sides correctness. She says that mother has all rights to do anything with her body and things in her body. Judith Jarvis Thompson also believes that fetuses are not persons, and killing them is not immoral. However she says that there are also situations, when abortion is incorrect. Also she gave 3 main thought experiments to get another point of view to abortion.…
The goal of Judith Jarvis Thomson in her defense of abortion is to sway the ideas of those who are against abortion by challenging the arguments they give for thinking so. She begins by stating a premise. “For the sake of the argument” a human embryo is a person. This premise is one of the arguments most opponents of abortion use, but as she points out, isn’t much of an argument at all. These people spend a lot of their time dwelling on the fact that the fetus is a person and hardly any time explaining how the fetus being a person has anything to with abortion being impermissible. In the same breath, she states that those who agree with abortion spend a lot of their time saying the fetus is in fact not a person. Either way, no argument is really formed. No reasons are given. For sake of challenging an actual argument, she is disregarding this issue. With this premise out of the way, she addresses the basic argument the pro-choice campaign believes. “Every person has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body; everyone would grant that. But surely a person’s right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother’s right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be performed.” The remainder of her paper is a series of analogies meant to challenge the basic argument mention above. When looking at the analogies separately, they are in no way related to the abortion topic, but the conclusions drawn from each can be applied. Because these examples aren’t directly related to the debate, our emotions won’t necessarily be involved and we can clearly think about what is the “right” thing to do for each specific scenario.…
The title is somewhat misleading because it's not a complete defense of Abortion it's more of a minimal defense. In Thomson's essay, she states that Abortion is not necessarily morally impermissible which means that there are times when it is permissible and there are times when it is not. She begins the essay by pointing out that people debate on whether or not a fetus is a person. Many people feel that If we had an answer to that then that would make things a whole lot simpler and we would know that if a fetus was a person then it would be morally impermissible to go forth with an abortion and if the fetus wasn't a person that it would be morally permissible to have an abortion. For the sake of argument, she goes on to say that a fetus is a person and even though that may be the case there are still many scenarios in which abortion is morally permissible.…
Abortion has always been a controversial topic in America. People have been separated into “pro life” and “pro choice” groups who support completely opposite topics. In “When Abortion Suddenly Stopped Making Sense”, Frederica Mathewes-Green successfully persuades readers why she is against abortion by utilizing personal anecdotes when switching from pro choice to pro life, alarming statistics and exposing a baby’s humanity using sympathetic language.…
Don Marquis believed that abortion was impermissible. He wrote a paper titled Why Abortion is Immoral which he argues about how abortion is seriously immoral and is in the same category as killing an innocent adult human being. Marquis’s arguments are the opposite of what it is that I am arguing. Marquis believes that a fetus is a person, so a fetus has a right to life. He believes that unless it is extreme circumstances it is immoral to kill a normal adult human because it causes “the loss to the victim of the value of its future” (Marquis, 192) and this is the equivalent to what happens when someone has an abortion.…
Personally, I think that any form of abortion is tantamount to murder, and should never be permitted. This article only brings to my attention that women who wish to have abortions are only concerned for themselves, as the argument is based upon the health of the woman. Although the author’s argument may be valid concerning some facets of the issue, I believe the focus of the subject should shift from the mother to the living creature inside and its right to…
Imagine if a women is forced to be a mother, even if she does not want to, even if she is not prepared, would it be fair? Would it be fair that a fifteen year old girl who was raped, was the mother of another girl? It would be a very irresponsible act on the part of the society to leave that girl, who is not even an adult, and let her take responsibility for the life of someone else. In the end, not all the women are the same, which is why everyone has a different opinion and a different perspective on life. Laws disallowing abortion keeps women from settling on the decisions that empower them to carry on with their preferred way of life, and reducing their capacity to contribute to society adequately.…
Dine, Ranana. “Scarlet Letters: Getting the History of Abortion and Contraception Right.” 13 August 2013. Americanprogress.org…
Due to boldily autonomy and the clear distinction between a fetus and a rational, self-aware person, abortion is morally permissible practically whenever the mother chooses it, given it is done humanely. Most people would agree that in cases where the woman did not choose pregnancy, like rape, abortion should be morally permissible due to bodily autonomy and the immorality of asking someone to undergo psychological and physical trauma due to something beyond their control. This is supported by the Famous Violinist argument which explains that women, especially those who are pregnant due to rape, are not morally obligated to endure this immense sacrifice, even if it would be nice to do so (Singer, 1975, p.113-114). Whilst Thomson’s argument has fallen under criticism based on utilitarianism, these arguments are countered by Singer’s deconstruction of the Conservative Argument and its flawed perception that human life is inherently special, which demonstrates the moral permissibility of most abortions. The Conservative Argument’s premise that a fetus is an innocent human can mean two things: either the fetus is a person that has self-awareness and rational thought or a fetus is a member of the human species (Singer, 1975, p.117).…
P1: Whether or not the unborn has a right to life, it does not have a right to…
“That’s our suspect? That scrawny looking thing?” I asked in disbelief. Nichols was next to me sipping precinct coffee.…