Why is abortion morally permissible

However, there is good reason for this debate as abortion is very necessary to discuss in order to develop a standard of practice. Advocates against abortion decree that the value of a fetal life is equal to the value of an adult person's life, and therefore, abortion is not morally permissible. Within this argument is the argument that the fetus obtains intrinsic value at some point among three stages: conception, viability, and birth.

This is in order to determine exactly at which one of these stages a fetus becomes a person and is to be considered a protected being.

Conception is the point where the genetic matter from both the mother and father first come into contact and the embryo is formed. Viability is the argument that once the fetus could survive outside the mother's womb that it is considered equal to that of a human adult and should be a protected being.

Obviously, the third stage is birth, when the fetus is born and is a newborn infant. The subject of abortion is discussed at great length in a book written by Jonathan Glover, entitled Causing Death and Saving Lives, in which he discusses the problem with these three separate stages. He argues why it is so problematic to view a fetus as a person at each stage of pregnancy, fertilization, viability, and birth.

Glover then proceeds to argue in favor of abortion in all instances where the mother wishes to have an abortion, and applies the principles that are associated with the direct wrongness of killing a human adult. There are three main principles to the direct wrongness of killing as well as countless side effects which he deems as "indirect" effects.

The "direct wrongness of killing" model is based on three principles: the reduction of worth-while life, violating an autonomous desire to live, and the production of fear or pain. Glover argues that the killing of a fetus, or abortion, violates none of the direct principles associated with killing, and therefore, makes abortion morally permissible. Glover also examines the counter arguments to his claim and refutes them with creative and logical arguments.

Using these arguments and counterarguments by Glover, we cannot determine at which point during the pregnancy that the fetus becomes a person, and therefore we should conclude that abortion is always morally permissible if the mother wishes to abort. Glover begins his investigation by recognizing the problem of when a potential human being becomes an actual one.

This is unclear to the principle of abortion because if it were accepted that a fetus is an actual person with the same rights as all other humans, then it would certainly be wrong to kill it.

However, if it could be established that the fetus is not the same as an adult human being, then it does not receive the same rights and privileges. Typically, there are three stages during pregnancy that it is argued that a fetus obtains these human rights. The beginning of the pregnancy is called conception, and is the first time the genetic ingredients of a future human adult are together as one.

This is the preliminary start to the argument against abortion because at no other time before this is there a potential person in one single mass. A sperm or an egg by itself is not a potential person unless they are coupled together. Conception has a relatively distinct beginning and is therefore easily recognized as the first time a possible human life will emerge. The first thing Glover sees wrong with this assumption is that there is a two-week period after the pregnancy where monozygotic twins can separate from the one egg.

Since this twinning is not genetically determined, it is unclear during these first two weeks how many people will emerge. The principle here is that a fertilized egg is so far different from anything we would recognize as a person. By using the word "person" in order to describe a fertilized egg would be stretching the word beyond its boundaries. Another example Glover uses is to say that the use of some contraceptives would not be classified as birth control, but rather murder, under the conception boundary.

The morning after pill or the I. Women who use these means to prevent pregnancy would have to stand trial, equivalent to murderers of fully-developed children or adults if we are to use conception as the means for determining personhood.

This may sound ridiculous to some, however, this is a necessary step to take if we consider conception the point at which a fetus becomes a person. Yet, nobody would be willing to convict a user of the morning after pill in the same way they would a pre-meditated murderer.

Viability is the next stage during pregnancy that can be argued as the point at which the fetus is considered a person with the same rights as a human adult because it is the stage at which the fetus could survive independently from the womb.

The argument for viability is quite obvious; that for the first time we have a potentially independent thing. Obviously this is a completely hypothetical situation, however, with our improving technology it would not be difficult to imagine that one day we might be able to depend on others for the weaknesses in our own bodies. In this case, this person would not be considered a human being. Their physical dependence would rely on someone else and therefore would not be viable.

Obviously this autonomous woman still deserves the same rights as other human adult, yet if we are to accept the viability argument she would not. Another argument against viability is that it is a shifting boundary. Mental health is one of the most important factors when considering the emancipation of women from the systematic oppression, which is the impermissibility of abortion. This is due to the intrusive nature of the procedure and the consequences it has on the lives of those involved.

If a woman has expressed that she is not mentally fit to carry out the full term of a pregnancy, her wishes should be heard. In the case of a mentally ill woman this is even more pressing. A weak counter-argument to this would be to say that once born the infant can be given away for adoption.

That would be an irrational conclusion; adoption centres should not be viewed as alternatives for unwanted pregnancies. The main conclusion of this essay is that abortion must never be deemed morally impermissible because it provides women with autonomy. The autonomy in question expands from health to social mobility. Not all women were made to be mothers and, as argued by Jones, the hypersexualisation and overstressed fecundity of black women is damaging not solely to the women involved but to our society as a whole [7].

An unwanted pregnancy to term enslaves a group that is often already systematically marginalised within society. By ensuring that abortion is morally permissible and properly legislated, women from ethnic minority and low-income backgrounds, are given control over their body and their social status. A Defense of Abortion. Reproductive autonomy and the ethics of abortion. Journal of Medical Ethics27 suppl 2 Why Abortion is Immoral. The Journal of Philosophy, 86 4 , The Open University Philosophers on abortion.

Cates, W. Phylon , 38 3 , Roth, B. Agenda: Empowering Women for Gender Equity, 58 , Tooley, M. Abortion and Infanticide.

Marquis, D. Jones, C. The question of whether the fetus is granted personhood at conception or anytime during its development is entirely irrelevant. Even if you declare personhood to the fetus, it does not determine the morality of abortion.

Nearly three out of ten women in the U. Abortion is moral because it is a fundamental right of competent adults to make their own decisions on the course of their.

Do I think that abortion is morally permissible? Yes, my argument is that I believe that abortion can be morally permissible but only in a few cases. The moral question of abortion, is abortion morally permissible? The question has been a concern for many philosophers in the contemporary world. This is the premise of opposition to abortion that most people rely on.

That premise would only work if, and only if, we. Abortion Thesis: Abortion is morally permissible in which a fetus is not a person which deprives the fetus to its right to life, circular reasoning is an ineffective to oppose abortion, abortion only risks the fetus not society, and deprivation from a fetus's future and suffering of a loved one has no affect on the argument towards anti-abortion.

The question of abortion has always considered as matter of freedom of choice for individual women; some women think that abortion is immoral because they regard it as an act of murder and not just women but people with morals and high values regardless of the causes or the impacts that led to abortion. According to popular argument, abortion is morally permissible in certain circumstances of pregnancies result from rape, life-threatening pregnancies, and contraception failure or malfunction.