Saturday, July 20, 2019
Abortion Essays -- essays research papers
John T. Noonan makes the argument that the jump in probability for a fetus’ coming to term, at a specific point in the development of the fetus, has an important implication for the humanity (personhood) of the fetus. He bases this argument on the reasoning that â€Å"life itself is a matter of probabilities, and most moral reasoning is an estimate of probabilities.†He goes on to state that his argument in which a fetus has an implication for the humanity of the fetus is strictly an â€Å"appeal to probabilities that actually exist.†To demonstrate his point concerning probabilities he uses an analogy. The analogy he uses is of a man who shoots into the bushes because of movement in the bushes. If the chances of this movement in the bushes being a man were 200 million to one, then no one would think anything of him firing away into the bushes. However, if the chances are 4 out of 5 that the movement is a man, then you would not be justified in firing into the b ushes. He uses this analogy to relate it to the development of a baby. When a male ejaculates he emits about 200 million spermatozoa. Of these 200 million, only one single spermatozoon has a chance to develop into a zygote. Noonan says that therefore, if one spermatozoon is destroyed than you’re only destroying a being that had a one in 200 million chance of ever developing into a reasoning being. This would be similar to the case of shooting into the bushes when there is a one in 200 million chance that the movement is that of a man. On the other hand, if a fetus is destroyed, then you’re terminating a being that had â€Å"an 80 percent chance of developing further into a baby outside the womb who, in time, would reason.†This would be similar to shooting into the bushes when the movement has a 4 out of 5 chance of being that of a man. The probability of the baby becoming a full being of reason drastically changes from a single spermatozoon (1 in 200 million) t o a fetus (4 out of 5). This probability change is important because it leads you to believe that aborting a fetus is wrong because of the high probability it has of becoming a being of reason.      Judith Jarvis Thomson offers a rather interesting analogy to an unwanted pregnancy. Thomson begins her analogy with the hypothetical situation of waking up and finding oneself wired by their circulatory system to a stranger. The stranger... ... in which the father is some heinous creep would just be plain wrong. Not to mention that she didn’t want this pregnancy in the first place. I also believe that a mother’s right to life is just as important as a fetus’s right to life. Therefore, if going through with a pregnancy would be life threatening then a mother should have the right to abort the fetus. If a mother would choose to die in order for the baby to be born then it would be an incredible superrogative good, but she is under no obligation to sacrifice herself on behalf of the fetus. If a person has taken a responsible and reasonable precaution not to get pregnant, but does, then I feel they should also have the right to abort the fetus. I just think that as long as a conscious effort was made to prevent pregnancy, then it is morally permissible to have an abortion. Abortion would not be morally permissible, in my opinion, for cases in which it is done for the sake of convenience. I strongly bel ieve that a fetus’s right to life outweighs any convenience issues in which the parents might have.                     Abortion Essays -- essays research papers John T. Noonan makes the argument that the jump in probability for a fetus’ coming to term, at a specific point in the development of the fetus, has an important implication for the humanity (personhood) of the fetus. He bases this argument on the reasoning that â€Å"life itself is a matter of probabilities, and most moral reasoning is an estimate of probabilities.†He goes on to state that his argument in which a fetus has an implication for the humanity of the fetus is strictly an â€Å"appeal to probabilities that actually exist.†To demonstrate his point concerning probabilities he uses an analogy. The analogy he uses is of a man who shoots into the bushes because of movement in the bushes. If the chances of this movement in the bushes being a man were 200 million to one, then no one would think anything of him firing away into the bushes. However, if the chances are 4 out of 5 that the movement is a man, then you would not be justified in firing into the b ushes. He uses this analogy to relate it to the development of a baby. When a male ejaculates he emits about 200 million spermatozoa. Of these 200 million, only one single spermatozoon has a chance to develop into a zygote. Noonan says that therefore, if one spermatozoon is destroyed than you’re only destroying a being that had a one in 200 million chance of ever developing into a reasoning being. This would be similar to the case of shooting into the bushes when there is a one in 200 million chance that the movement is that of a man. On the other hand, if a fetus is destroyed, then you’re terminating a being that had â€Å"an 80 percent chance of developing further into a baby outside the womb who, in time, would reason.†This would be similar to shooting into the bushes when the movement has a 4 out of 5 chance of being that of a man. The probability of the baby becoming a full being of reason drastically changes from a single spermatozoon (1 in 200 million) t o a fetus (4 out of 5). This probability change is important because it leads you to believe that aborting a fetus is wrong because of the high probability it has of becoming a being of reason.      Judith Jarvis Thomson offers a rather interesting analogy to an unwanted pregnancy. Thomson begins her analogy with the hypothetical situation of waking up and finding oneself wired by their circulatory system to a stranger. The stranger... ... in which the father is some heinous creep would just be plain wrong. Not to mention that she didn’t want this pregnancy in the first place. I also believe that a mother’s right to life is just as important as a fetus’s right to life. Therefore, if going through with a pregnancy would be life threatening then a mother should have the right to abort the fetus. If a mother would choose to die in order for the baby to be born then it would be an incredible superrogative good, but she is under no obligation to sacrifice herself on behalf of the fetus. If a person has taken a responsible and reasonable precaution not to get pregnant, but does, then I feel they should also have the right to abort the fetus. I just think that as long as a conscious effort was made to prevent pregnancy, then it is morally permissible to have an abortion. Abortion would not be morally permissible, in my opinion, for cases in which it is done for the sake of convenience. I strongly bel ieve that a fetus’s right to life outweighs any convenience issues in which the parents might have.                    Â
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.