This essay discusses the ethical dilemma that the abortion issue presents using the arguments of three philosophers, Judith Jarvis-Thompson, Mary Anne Warren and Don Marquis to analytically discuss and debate each of their individual positions.
Examined here is the seemingly intractable debate that has garnered much debate and philosophical discourse. Is abortion unethical? If so, on what grounds? Does a fetus have an unquestionable right to life? The arguments of three philosophers, Thompson, Warren, and Marquis attempt to construe argument devoid of appeal to religious sources. Actual logical arguments are put forth and then dissected by the author. Instruction of Informal fallacies also included, as well as topics such as debate through analogies, Criteria of Personhood, and Potentiality theories: FLO theory.
“First let us begin with an argument derived from the article by Judith Jarvis-Thompson entitled, “A Defense of Abortion.” She starts of with explaining the common pro-life argument, which relies heavily on the premise that a fetus is a human being and a person at the moment of conception. While examining the continuous expectancy that the fetus constantly develops into a child, she from this judges that to draw a line of personhood from this point or another is to exemplify the argument with an arbitrary carelessness. She makes no attempt to refute a fetus as a person or otherwise. To do so she deems as participation in a “slippery-slope argument.” Thompson acknowledges that the fetus is a human well before it’s birth, for it would be biologically unsound to state otherwise. Based on her take of the anti-abortionist’s argument an acorn (a potential oak tree) would be viewed in the same way as an Oak tree is, even though that this is an incorrect and rather crude observation. From this basis, she says on cannot make a good examination until a better counter-argument is examined and then she says we will have more sufficient grounds on which to reject it or not.”