The right for a woman to receive an abortion has been argued endlessly throughout political, moral, and religious debates. Of these three topics, the morality of an abortion is the most detrimental decision, because an individual’s moral standpoints lead to their political and religious beliefs, resulting in their actions. When analyzing the issue of abortion there are many factors that support the view that abortion is moral in almost all cases. This perspective can be supported with the basis of three different assumptions: the fetus is a person at the moment of conception, the fetus is not a person until birth, and the personhood of a fetus cannot be decided at a given point, excluding this aspect from the argument. For each of these assumptions an argument supporting the morality of abortion can be expedited. These include the mother’s right to her own body, characteristics that define a human being, and outside influences on the mother’s life. All of these components support the belief that a woman has the right to choose if she wants an abortion and that terminating the pregnancy is moral. To validate the argument at hand, we will evaluate how and why these factors prove that the choice/action of abortion is morally acceptable. For the purpose of the first argument, it will be assumed that the fetus is a person at the moment of conception to justify that abortion is still moral from this standpoint. The initial statement being addressed deals with the idea that all humans have a right to life merely because they are human. This idea is generally accepted by both the liberal and conservative view; however, these sides disagree on whether the fetus’s [Office1] right to life outweighs the mother’s right to her body. One philosopher, Judith Thompson, displays her liberal view through the story of a violinist and innocent individual. In the story the innocent individual is kidnapped by a Society of Music Lovers who connect the violinist to the individual’s circulatory system to help cure the violinist’s life-threatening disease. The catch of the story is that the innocent individual cannot disconnect themselves even though they were involuntarily brought there, because doing so would directly kill the violinist. The innocent individual is told that they must stay in bed for nine months connected to the violinist while the violinist uses their kidneys. The Society of Music Lovers justifies this result by claiming that the violinist has a right to life as do all humans, and therefore cannot be unplugged. The innocent individual represents the mother of an unborn baby and the connection between them represents how the pregnancy affects her life. The baby cannot survive without taking from the mother’s body, but the mother has a right to decide what happens in her body because she owns it. The opposing view against abortion would claim that the fetus is an innocent human being, and killing it would take away it’s right to life. Doing this constitutes as immoral, therefore the act of abortion is immoral. The mother then must let the fetus inhabit her body because the fetus’s right
…show more content…
In objection to this justification one could argue Don Marquis’s view that killing is wrong not because of how it effects the mother or her family/friends, but how it effects the victim. For this scenario, abortion would be immoral because the victim suffers a lost future and is given no right to life. In response to this, one could argue that the effect on the mother’s life plays a huge role in deciding the morality of an abortion because outside factors influence the type of future that the child would be subject to. For example, if the mother cannot afford a child the child and mother would both live an unhappy, stressful life because they could not support themselves. Also, the mother of the child could have certain mental/physical health concerns that would not allow her to adequately care for the child. This list could extend continuously, but the point that derives from it is that the fetus’s future is not the sole deciding factor on the morality of an abortion. It must be taken into account during the decision, but if it greatly diminishes the quality of life for the mother than act of abortion deems
In objection to this justification one could argue Don Marquis’s view that killing is wrong not because of how it effects the mother or her family/friends, but how it effects the victim. For this scenario, abortion would be immoral because the victim suffers a lost future and is given no right to life. In response to this, one could argue that the effect on the mother’s life plays a huge role in deciding the morality of an abortion because outside factors influence the type of future that the child would be subject to. For example, if the mother cannot afford a child the child and mother would both live an unhappy, stressful life because they could not support themselves. Also, the mother of the child could have certain mental/physical health concerns that would not allow her to adequately care for the child. This list could extend continuously, but the point that derives from it is that the fetus’s future is not the sole deciding factor on the morality of an abortion. It must be taken into account during the decision, but if it greatly diminishes the quality of life for the mother than act of abortion deems