Abortion

In order to discuss an important issue such as abortion, we must first understand what it means. Abortion is the expulsion of a human fetus within the first twelve weeks of pregnancy, before it is viable. In other words, it is when a women has tissue removed from her uterus. Abortion is a very fragile issue to discuss because of the many conflicts involved with pro-abortion and anti-abortion. It has many negative and positive response from many people including philosophers. Thus, we will be discussing the arguments of utilitarian reasoning, of the article written by Judith Jarvis Thompson who is pro-abortion and by Sidney Callahan who is a prolife but also discusses prochoice. We will be analyzing each argument to understand their point of view on this controversial issue. Furthermore, I will indicate my own solution and voice my own opinion on abortion and also I will discuss what I do agree with and what I do disagree.

First , according to utilitarianism, we ought to decide which action or practice is best by considering the likely or actual consequences of each alternative. Hence for the utilitarian their arguments for abortion often cite the bad consequences that may result from a continued pregnancy such as loss of job, the suffering of the future child, the burden of caring for the child under particular circumstances, and so on. Some of their arguments against abortion also cite the loss of happiness (and that is the central theme in utilitarianism: happiness) and the future contribution of the being that is aborted. Act utilitarians believe that the persons making the abortion decision must consider the consequences of the alternative actions. In other words deciding to have the abortion or not. The kinds of consequences to consider are health risks and benefits, positive or negative mental or psychological consequences, and financial and social aspects of the alternative choices. Notice that the fetus is not an issue to the utilitarian if it is recognize as a person or not.It is the effects on the mother, child, and others that matter in the utilitarian thinking and not the moral status of the fetus or the "ontological?status at that stage of development. Moreover, notice that the utilitarian say that abortion sometimes would be permissible and sometimes not because it would depend on the consequences.

In the article A Defense of Abortion, Thompson agrees that the prospect for "drawing a line?in the development of the fetus looks dim. She's also inclined to agree that the fetus has already become a human person well before birth. Because by the 10th week, for example, it already has a face, arms and legs, fingers and toes, it has internal organs, and brain activity is detectable. Thompson grants that the fetus is a person. Thus the argument against abortion is that every person has a right to life. However, she uses the example of the violinist to shed another light about the issue of right to life. Thompson says to imagine that one morning to wake up and find ourselves attached through various tubings to a famous violinist. We have been kidnapped during the night because we are the only one to have the right blood type to help the violinist who has a fatal kidney disease. So they have plugged us into him so that he can live. To unplug ourselves would mean to kill the violinist. Thus, they say it will only be for nine months but what if it was for nine years or the rest of our life. Thompson reminds us that all persons have a right to live, and violinists are persons. She says that we have the right to decide what to our body, but a person's right to life outweighs our right to decide what happens in and to our body. She also brings the issue of rape; if a woman got pregnant due to rape would those who oppose abortion make an exception? She is sure they would change their minds about that. Beside rape, she also says that what if the pregnancy would shorten the mother's life would aborting be permissible? She uses the example of a woman who has become pregnant, and now learns that she has a heart problem which might result into death if she carries the baby to term.That is when she explains the extreme position which is abortion is impermisible even to the mother's life. So, who is more important to live? They are both people and do have the right to live, so how to choose between them? To perform the abortion would be directly killing the child, whereas to do nothing would not be killing the mother but letting her die.Thompson also brings up the case of self-defense. If a person is being harmed in any way such as the pregnant woman with the heart conditon then abortion would be permissible because it is self-defense to save her life. Same for the example of the violinist; we are being harmed and our life is in danger if we stay plugged in to him. Thus, self-defense is permissible to save our life and to let the other die.

She also brings another argument of self-defense with an example to make it clearer to us readers. Suppose a mother finds herself in a very tiny house with a rapidly growing child. The mother will be crushed to death but the child won't be crushed to death and in the end he will simply burst and walk out a free man. She argues that however the innocent the child may be, the mother does not have to wait passively while it crushes her to death. Thompson concludes for the self-defense is that a woman can defend her life against the threat to it posed by an unborn child, even if it involves death.

She brings another view to defend abortion which is an example of Henry Fonda's cool hands. She is asking us that for a persons?right to life would include having the right to be given at least the bare minimum one needs for a continuum of life. The question she is asking is that what if the person has no right to even be given the bare minimum? She uses the example of a person who's sick, ready to die. The only thing that will save him is the touch of Henry Fonda's cool hand on the fevered brow. However, the person has no right to be given the touch of Henry Fonda's cool hands on the fevered brow. It would be nice if Mr. Fonda could but the person has no right at all against anybody that he should do this to him. In addition if we return to the other example of the violinist, who needs our kidneys to live, has no right against us that we should give him continued use of our kidneys. She argues that nobody has any right to use our kidneys unless we give him the right to do so. Also nobody has the right against us that we should give him this right because if we do let the violionist use our kidneys it is shown as a kind act. Plus , to explain more on this argument is another example presented. Suppose a boy and his little brother are jointly given a box of chocolate for Christmas. If the older boy takes the box and

...