Arguments For And Against Abortion Essay
We therefore extend rights to formerly excluded persons, such as infants, the mentally deficient, and the severely disabled, and, for that matter, any sentient being, including many animals.Nevertheless, even after expanding the concept of moral considerability, pro-life advocates still have no ground on which to dismiss the objection of fetal insentience.To this extent, pro-life advocates must broaden the criteria for moral considerability to include “potential” persons, or, more generally, potentially sentient beings.Pro-choice advocates may object to the argument from potentiality on the grounds that what a thing is and what a thing can be are importantly and logically distinct.
To resolve this apparent conflict, we need only revise our criterion for moral considerability to include sentience as a sufficient, if not also necessary, condition for the attribution of rights.Such dissent culminates in biocentrism, the belief that life is intrinsically valuable.Trees, for example, are intrinsically valuable in that they possess interests of welfare as self-preserving, living entities. Goodpaster argues in “On Being Morally Considerable”, life is the most fundamental, non-arbitrary criterion for moral considerability, to say nothing of moral significance (1).This essay is an original work by --Animalian (talk) , 14 February 2015 (UTC).It does not necessarily reflect the views expressed in Rational Wiki's Mission Statement, but we welcome discussion of a broad range of ideas.They keep deleting this instead of being more productive and editing the sections to include their objections. Due to the centrality of the right to life in the abortion debate, this section will cover the right to life in some detail, and defend it against common criticisms.This view, however, raises several major objections.First, a fetus is not a human insofar as that it is not a rational, autonomous being.Moreover, fetuses lack sentience early in pregnancy.The right to life is influenced by the probability that the mother and/or child will die, the expected quality of the mother’s and child’s life following natural pregnancy or abortion, the expected lifespan of the mother and child following natural pregnancy or abortion, and various combinations of these factors. that roughly 40% of all pregnancies, both documented and undocumented, end in miscarriage, we may strongly and reasonably assume that roughly 40% of abortions occur in cases wherefore the fetus would die regardless (1). Following the mantra “the greatest good for the greatest number”, we may derive useful utilitarian arguments against abortion, depending on the value we select.In general, the fetus’s right to life will outweigh the mother’s right to life; out of nearly four million live births in the US each year, only 650 women die of pregnancy-related complications (1, 2). However, it follows that roughly 60% of abortions result in the death of children who would otherwise have been born alive. In classical utilitarianism, that value is suffering.