Personhood and Abortion Essay

The topic of psychehood and stillbirth is a very debatable iodine. I crack with Marquis and Thomsons theory on how somebodyhood does non settle the ethical debate on abortion. Therefore, I will cond integrity Don Marquiss dividing line, his critique of the traditional pro-life cable, why this argument is far off from the general idea of what a soulfulness is and why I agree with his argument. Then, I will discuss Judith Thomsons argument and why I hope the Burglars and Seed People argument is the most persuasive. Lastly, I will describe what I believe the explanation of a mortal is.Towards the beginning of Marquiss name he states, The anti-abortionist charges, not unreasonably, that pro-choice beliefs concerning cleansing are too narrow to be acceptable the pro-choicer charges, not unreasonably, that anti-abortionist principles concerning annihilateing are too broad to be acceptableAll this suggests that a necessary condition of resolving the abortion controversy is a more theoretical account of the inappropriateness of cleansing. (92) I agree that individualhood alone does not solve the issue of abortion.His article discusses the principle concerning the wrongness of killing. This principle entails that it is wrong to destroy cancer-cell cultures or any opposite human cell cultures that are done in a lab. This is far-off from what the general idea of a person is. Cells and a person contri providedion little of the same characteristics thitherfore, the anti-abortionists principle is too broad. Marquis says, sidesplitting adults is wrong because it deprives them of their future. But in killing a foetus, we are similarly depriving it of its future. Thus, it seems inconsistent to object to one but not the other. (90) Basically, he is saw that if we think killing an adult is wrong then we ought to think that killing a fetus is wrong. Marquis concentrates on applying that personhood doesnt matter when contention about abortion because most arguments involving personhood are too narrow or too broad in ground. What matters is the fact that killing is depriving one of ones future. This principle even suggests that fetuses at an early stage of motherliness fall under the wrongness of killing idea. Marquis also discusses how the pro-choicer believes in a moral principle concerning the wrongness of killing that fetuses do not fall under.He says that this principle is too narrow in scope and does not embrace enough. This principle would allow for the killing of infants that were mentally incapacitate or ill. I agree with Marquiss concept on how personhood does not settle this controversial issue. Just being a person does not explain why abortion is wrong. As Marquis discusses, the wrongness comes from the loss of ones life deprives one of the future. Judith Jarvis Thomsons article begins with her saying, Most opposition to abortion relies on the premise that the fetus is a human being, a person, from the moment of concep tion.I think that the premise is false, that the fetus is not a person from the moment of conception. A newly fertilized ovum, a newly implanted clump of cells, is no more a person than an acorn is an oak tree. (97) The first premise of the Potential Persons Argument says, If it is wrong to kill persons, it is wrong to kill potential persons. (Lecture) Thomson believes that potentially being something or someone does not give one the rights of actually being that something or someone. Therefore, a freshly implanted clump of cells in a female is no different than a new acorn growing to potentially become an oak tree.An acorn is just a potential oak tree there is no guarantee that it indeed will grow into an oak tree, just as a clump of cells has the potential to grow into a human, but there is no guarantee this will happen. Thomson uses an interesting example in her argument. A tinkerer is dying and only you have the right blood example to save him. You are kidnapped overnight a nd the violinists circulatory governing body is plugged into yours. You have to stay plugged into him until he gets better. It is allowable for you to make out to disconnect yourself from him because you did not consent.The same idea would apply to rape and incest. Thomson says, charge supposing a case in which a woman pregnant due to rape ought to allow the unborn person to use her body for the minute of arc he needs, we should not conclude that he has a right to do so we should conclude that she is self-centered, callous, indecent, but not unjust, if she refuses. (108) This quote explains why the violinist theory would apply to rape and incest. Thomson also uses the Seed People argument, which I believe is the most persuasive argument. There are seed state who float in the air, land on your carpet and grow into adults.Because of this, you pervert preventive inters, but the seed people pass through the screen and realize root. It is permissible to get rid of the seed peop le because you did present preventative measures. This argument implies that abortion would be permissible if the mother did take preventative actions while having intercourse and still got pregnant. I agree with Thomson on this. If a woman is on birth control and uses a natural rubber while having intercourse and she still gets pregnant, then it should be morally permissible for her to get an abortion.It is normal for adults to have an urge for intercourse and I believe they should be able to do so even if they do not want a baby. Intercourse is not just about pleasure, but about love as well. Therefore, it should be permissible for adults who have had protect intercourse to get an abortion. Some people might object to Thomsons theory on the seed people because you are still killing a person. But, you have the right to what happens in your body and therefore I believe you have the right to make the decision for an abortion.Overall, I agree with Thomsons article. I like that sh e starts with a controversial pro-life argument and then finishes with a pro-choice conclusion. She used great analogies when presenting her arguments. What makes up a person is another controversial issue. In my opinion, a person is a self-conscious or rational being with the ability to reason and a notion of self-identity. Although, I think an singulars definition of a person may be based upon whether they believe abortion is morally permissible or not.One might try to fix the definition of personhood in order to get the desired outcome about abortion. For example, an individual who thinks abortion is morally permissible might define a person as someone who has the ability to reason, ability to consent, ability to control ones attention and action, ability to communicate, and ability to be morally responsible. By this definition, a fetus would not really be a person because fetuses can not do all of these things. Therefore, abortion would be morally permissible because the fetus is not a person.