Sensationalized Philosophy: A Reply to Marquis's" Why Abortion is Immoral (original) (raw)

Are Fetuses Being with any Moral Rights? A Perspective from Abortion

2019

The fetus destined to be born rather than aborted has become increasingly an object of medical and moral concern. The debate over fetal surgery, fetal rights, and maternal-fetal conflicts raises important ethical questions concerning the moral status of the fetus. The liberals doubt think that the fetuses should have moral rights at conception, and the conservatives challenges the liberal position. The paper pointed out five characteristics of personhood following Mary Anne Warren’s view. I have shown the pro-life and pro-choice belief of when personhood begins. The pro-life believe that human personhood begins at conception, whereas the pro-choice holds contrary view is that personhood develops later during pregnancy or at childbirth. Finally, the paper concludes considering that there is no moral difference between a fetus and a born child as we cannot draw any line in its continuous development.

Is there a 'new ethics of abortion'?

Journal of Medical Ethics, 2001

This paper argues that the central issue in the abortion debate has not changed since 1967 when the English parliament enacted the Abortion Act. That central issue concerns the moral status of the human fetus. The debate here is not, it is argued, primarily a moral debate, but rather a metaphysical debate and/or a theological debate-though one with massive moral implications. It concerns the nature and attributes that an entity requires to have "full moral standing" or "moral inviolability" including a "right to life". It concerns the question when, in its development from newly fertilised ovum to unequivocally mature, autonomous morally inviolable person does a human being acquire that nature and those attributes, and thus a "right to life". The paper briefly reviews standard answers to these questions, outlining some problems associated with each. Finally there is a brief discussion of one way in which the abortion debate has changed since 1967-notably in the increasingly vociferous claim, especially from disability rights sectors, that abortion on grounds of fetal abnormality implies contempt for and rejection of disabled people-a claim that is rebutted.

The Problem of Abortion: Jurisprudential or Philosophical?

Islam and Christian - Muslim Relations, 2005

This article contends that the problem of abortion is essentially philosophical rather than jurisprudential. Although much debate derives from diverse, and sometimes contradictory,rulings by different legal systems on the act of terminating the life of a foetus and from varied responses to these rulings, it is necessary to ask about the reasons for these legal rulings and moral responses. Four contending theories of abortion, emphasizing respectively the concepts of sanctity of life, free will, value of investment and conscious entity, are briefly outlined and criticisms of each theory noted. Analysis of the logical structure of the theories and identificationof presuppositions underlying them confirm the claim that the problem is essentially philosophical, which indicates the need for debate in the philosophy of values and in metaphysics.

Targeting the Fetal Body and/or Mother-Child Connection: Vital Conflicts and Abortion

Linacre Quarterly , 2019

Is the “act itself” of separating a pregnant woman and her previable child neither good nor bad morally, considered in the abstract? Recently, Maureen Condic and Donna Harrison have argued that such separation is justified to protect the mother’s life and that it does not constitute an abortion as the aim is not to kill the child. In our article on maternal–fetal conflicts, we agree there need be no such aim to kill (supplementing aims such as to remove). However, we argue that to understand “abortion” as performed only where the death of the child is intended is to define the term too narrowly. Respect for the mother, the fetus, and the bond between them goes well beyond avoiding any such aim. We distinguish between legitimate maternal treatments simply aimed at treating or removing a damaged part of the woman and illegitimate treatments that focus harmfully on the fetal body and its presence within the mother’s body. In obstetrics as elsewhere, not all side effects for one subject of intervention can be outweighed by intended benefits for another. Certain side effects of certain intended interventions are morally conclusive.

On moral justification or otherwise of abortion

The public discourse on this subject is polarised into the so-called 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' camps, particularly in the West. Morality or otherwise of abortion is a challenging question that is often a victim of ignorance, hidden agendas, fundamentally different worldviews and a host of social issues. Continuing development of science and medicine also has its profound impact on this question, not to mention the shifts in social contexts, especially in the West. The debate is often predicated on the concept of personhood, which is one of the most difficult questions in philosophy, and whether an embryo is a 'person with potential' or a 'potential person'. The real or apparent dichotomy of quality vs. sanctity of life also bears upon the debate, related to other debates within the larger theistic-atheistic debates such as euthanasia and so-called 'right to die': 'Today, then, the medical tradition emphasizing the principle of sanctity of human life is competing with another school of thought according to which some lives are not worth living, because they are perceived to be of too poor a quality.' This essay tries to provide some historical background, briefly outline the arguments on behalf of both sides, subject them to critique, and finally offer a tentative and hesitant conclusion. As Thomas Nagel has suggested 'There is no view from nowhere' and therefore anyone, on either side of the argument, comes with the inevitable baggage of beliefs, experiences and commitments that influence to a larger or lesser degree one's answer to this challenging question.

Abortion and our Attitude to the Foetus

Churchman 119.3, 2005

It is vital, if there is to be a public debate on abortion, that Christians are crystal clear about their position, and the biblical assumptions about human nature which lie behind calls for abortion to be abandoned or at least curbed. This article will explore both pro-life and pro-choice positions on the central issue of our attitude to the foetus, which as John Stott says, will largely determine our attitude to abortion. Our attitude to the foetus will also affect our attitude to other issues such as euthanasia, embryonic cloning, and stem cell research. As Archbishop Peter Jensen says, “the crucial element remains the status of the human life that is being commercialised and then destroyed by these procedures”.