PHL 118 WI

3/26/24

Mckenzie Lee

Abortion paper

The abortion debate, which centers on whether a woman should be able to choose to have

an abortion, is a contentious topic in both current politics and many people's personal lives. I feel

that abortion is morally acceptable because it is a woman's body and should be her choice. For

example, I believe it is OK if a woman decides she is not ready for a child and chooses to terminate

the pregnancy. In this paper, I shall contrast the arguments for pro-choice and pro-life. Then

describe Noonans main arguments on abortion his arguments about genetics, probability, and

humanity. Then I shall explain why these are not good ones.

Abortion is sometimes presented as a recent phenomenon, despite being as old as recorded

history. Abortion is the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, which destroys the embryo

or fetus. It is most performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. An abortion can be performed

by swallowing a medication during the first trimester that causes the baby's death. The other

alternative is to have surgery at a medical clinic to remove the baby. People who support abortion

are pro-choice. Pro-choice refers to the opinion that a pregnant woman should be able to undergo

an abortion if she wishes. The opposite of this is pro-life, which refers to the belief that all human

life, including unborn embryos and fetuses, has a right to life and should be legally protected. I am

one who thinks abortion is permissible in most cases.

end her pregnancy by abortion. At the time, Texas forbade abortions except in circumstances where

terminating the pregnancy would save the mother's life. The case was first heard in the United

States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, where Harry Wade represented the State of

Texas. The court found in Roe's favor on the legal grounds of her case but refused to issue an

injunction against the implementation of abortion-prohibition legislation. The case was brought up

to the Supreme Court, where it was decided 7-2 in favor of Roe. They argued that a woman's right

to an abortion fell under the 14th amendment's protection of privacy.

The court's judgment in Roe v Wade changed laws in 46 states, giving women "total

autonomy" over their pregnancies during the first trimester while also defining what states could

and could not regulate during the second and third trimesters. Jane Roe has emerged as a notable

pro-life voice after the case's decision. This case shows that woman she has the right to decide

whether they want to have a child despite the circumstances.

John T Noonan Jr was an influential figure in both legal studies and religious studies. He was

known as a federal judge and a catholic author. His writings covered a wide range of topics

including morality and religious freedom. Noonan was completely Pro-life, he opposes abortion. In

his article “An Almost Absolute Value in History” he discusses his believes that killing another

human being for no cause is ethically wrong, and so having an abortion is morally wrong. He

believes that the fetus has the right to life from the moment of conception.

His first argument is about humanity. According to this argument, when a being becomes

completely human, it is entitled to a full range of rights. When a being has the entire complement

of human DNA, it is considered completely human. As a result, a being has the right to live from
conception. Noonan also advocates for viability dependence. Viability is the ability to live, especially

under certain conditions, the capacity to operate or be sustained. He compares viability to

dependence, citing the example of a toddler. A child between the ages of 1 and 5 is also reliant on

its mother or father to provide food, bathe it, and have a secure environment to live. All these

factors make it dependent on someone else to survive. So, he raises the question: is it okay or

acceptable to kill a toddler? If killing a toddler is unacceptable, why is killing a fetus acceptable?

This goes into the women health and human life protection act. The south Dakota state

legislature passed this law in 2006. It outlawed abortion in almost every circumstance, including

cases of rape or incest. The only exception was “a medical procedure designed or intended to

prevent the death of the pregnant mother.” According to the act, pregnancy begins at conception

and not when the embryo becomes implanted in the wall of the uterus. This means that the law

banned emergency contraception and some forms of hormonal contraception. The law was

repealed by a voter referendum. Then in 2007, South Dakota lawmakers submitted a revised act,

which allows abortion in cases of rape or incest. The members of the South Dakota legislature

stated that the goal of the proposed law is to get the U.S Supreme Court to overturn the Roe

decision. I don’t think that this law should overturn ROE v wade because it is not right to not be able

to have that option or choice to have a baby or not.

Another of his reasons is the probability argument, which claims that something special

occurs during conception, implying that a new type of being exists. During conception, the

likelihood of a rational human developing into a being increases dramatically. Noonan also

addresses the concept of potentialities in his probability argument. He claims that the chances of a

fertilized ovum growing into an embryo are four out of five. With such high probability, the
fertilized ovum's chances of becoming a baby or a human have increased dramatically. The

biological probabilities argument is used to support the notion that the right to life begins at

conception since the possibility of a fertilized ovum being spontaneously aborted is minimal when

compared to the probability that it will not. In essence, he recognizes the uncertainty and

unpredictability in the development of certain capacities connected with personhood and contends

that a fetus' moral standing is probabilistic and changes throughout time.

Another one of his arguments is the genetics argument. The genetics argument is based on

the premise that killing a human being is unethical, and that a fetus is also a human being. He

contends that the fetus has a significant moral right to life since it possesses a genetic code.

Therefore, they are human, and therefore have a significant moral claim to life. Within this

argument, he also has a simplicity argument for the genetic principle, which includes being simple,

intuitive, and absolute, implying that a human being may be easily identified. I am a human being,

and you are a human being. You can simply identify the human being. It is intuitive since killing

another human being is obviously wrong. It is absolute because it is always evil to kill another

person. This theory contends that now of conception, when the sperm fertilizes the egg, a unique

genetic code is formed that differs from that of the mother or father. Some view this genetic

uniqueness as a marker of individuality and potential personality.

He also discusses sentience. Sentience refers to the ability to perceive or feel things. Some

argue that fetuses are not sentient, and therefore do not have a right to life. However, Noonan

argues that fetuses can feel and react to their environment while in the womb, suggesting they do

have a capacity for sentience. The passage notes that the timing of fetal sentience is a key point of

contention. Some experts believe sentience and viability (the ability to survive outside the womb)
occur around the same time, in which case the choice of standard may not matter much. But if

sentience occurs earlier than viability, that will place more restrictions on abortion rights. There is

disagreement among researchers about when exactly fetal sentience begins, with some arguing it is

impossible before 24 weeks, while others do not rule out the possibility of sentience as early as 17

weeks. Overall, the passage highlights how the debate around abortion often centers on the

question of when fetuses become sentient, and whether that should be the key threshold for moral

considerability and the right to life.

The argument against humanity is a bad argument. A fertilized egg has the potential to

develop into a baby, but this is not guaranteed. Many fertilized eggs never fully develop due to

natural miscarriage or other complications. Defining life as beginning at conception places an undue

burden on women's rights, as it would effectively force women to carry pregnancies to term against

their will. The fetus requires the mother's body to survive before viability, so the woman is

effectively "lending" her body to the fetus.

The vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester, when the fetus is not viable

outside the woman's body and is entirely dependent on her health and body. It cannot be

considered a separate entity at this stage. Adoption is not a suitable alternative to abortion, as the

decision to give up a child remains the woman's choice. Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to

term against her will is a violation of her bodily autonomy and civil rights. Defining life at conception

can also restrict optimal medical care, as termination may be medically necessary in certain cases,

even if the fetus is technically "alive." the passage argues that the "humanity" argument for

granting a fertilized egg the same rights as a born person is flawed, as it fails to account for the

realities of pregnancy and the fundamental rights of women over their own bodies. Take away her
reproductive choice and you step onto a slippery slope. If the government can force a woman to

continue a pregnancy, what about forcing a woman to use contraception or undergo sterilization?

The next argument I will criticize is the probability argument. This argument is flawed

because similar magnitude shifts in probability can occur before conception. This means that even

unborn beings will have rights. Sometimes there is no probability shift at conception. This means

that fertilized eggs will not always have rights. Then there's the reality that, while we'd like to think

of pregnancy as a glorious period when a human being grows and thrives without incident, it's not

uncommon for something to go wrong. In the context of pregnancy, complications such as early

miscarriages or serious fetal abnormalities or other difficulties may necessitate termination for

medical reasons, especially when the mother's health is at risk (as she has the right to her body). In

these instances, termination is frequently the medically recommended option.

However, defining life at conception can influence medical decisions, potentially limiting

optimal treatment options, as carrying the fetus to term becomes the mandated course of action

regardless of outcomes. There are instances where women who did not have condition before

getting pregnant but now do. For example, complications like pre-eclampsia, a potentially fatal

pregnancy problem caused by high blood pressure or placenta accreta, which can arise during

pregnancy, may pose significant health risks to the mother, altering the perceived optimal medical

choices.

The genetics argument is also flawed. This is because simply having a genetic code does not

mean that the fetus should be born. For example, assume a woman was raped but was not involved

in the decision to have the child. It is unfair to her to bring this child into the world only because of

genetics. When a pregnancy occurs unexpectedly, women may fear they are too old, too busy, or
not prepared. Similarly, some women believe they are not emotionally or mentally prepared to care

for a kid, let alone carry a pregnancy. Women have the right to give up their child if they are unable

to financially support them or have health issues that may interfere with pregnancy. Pregnancy can

endanger the mother's life and health. Pregnancy may exacerbate underlying or pre-existing health

problems, endangering a woman's health. Along with underlying illnesses including heart disease,

kidney failure, and pulmonary hypertension, a form of blood pressure affecting the lungs. Women

with renal or cardiac conditions are at an increased risk of pregnancy-related death. In the case of

rape or incest, forcing a woman to become pregnant through this violent act would bring additional

psychological suffering to the victim. Often a woman is too afraid to speak up or is unaware she is

pregnant, thus the morning after pill is ineffective in these situations.

The morning after pill prevents either fertilization (occurring up to eighteen hours after

intercourse) or implantation of the fertilized egg in the lining of the uterus (occurring about a week

or two after conception). A woman who takes it after intercourse will not know if it worked yet or

not but it is a good second step precaution. The pill affects womans hormones in such a way that

the egg cannot be fertilized, or if it is it cannot become implanted in the lining of the uterus.

Instead, the egg is sloughed off during menstruation. It reduces the chances of becoming pregnant,

it is not completely effective because it does not prevent tubal pregnancies. The side effects of the

morning after pill include temporary nausea and breast tenderness. The morning after pill has been

part of standard carefool rape victims for more than a decade. Doctors estimate that by making the

morning after pill widely available, the number of abortions could be reduced by 1.7 million

annually and the number of abortions could be reduced 800,000 annually.

occurs. All we can tell for now is that the fetus almost surely cannot feel pain during the first

trimester but almost certainly can in the third. The exact onset of sentience in the second trimester

is not only uncertain, but possibly unknowable. It is dependent on the formation of neuronal

connections, which is a process rather than a single event. Drawing an exact line within a process is

most likely arbitrary.

These reasons demonstrate why noonans' arguments are ineffective. Abortions are morally

correct in many circumstances, such as Mrs. Sherri Finkbine and Thalidomide case. An Arizona

woman discovered that she could give birth to a baby with deadly abnormalities because of a drug

she took before she knew she was pregnant. The woman's doctor encourages her to have an

abortion. She then speaks to the media anonymously to raise awareness about the dangers of the

substance. The media spreads her narrative, revealing her name, and she is prevented from

obtaining an abortion. Then she loses her job. Then her entire family gets death threats. She leaves

the United States to seek an abortion and must travel to numerous countries before locating a

hospital in Europe that will execute the surgery. As expected, the event shows a severely

malformed fetus. Despite this, the public continues to criticize the woman for her decision. This is

not the stuff of dreams; it is from the not-so-distant past. Sherri Finkbine is the woman who has

been through it all. And, given the American government's ongoing attempts to policewomen's

bodies, her narrative is as relevant today as it was in 1962. The case is important because it raised

international awareness to the hazards of Thalidomide, a medicine that produced serious

congenital abnormalities.
 Judith Thomson challenges Noonan's argument. Thomson was an American philosopher

who focused on ethics and metaphysics. Her work covers a wide range of themes, but she is most

recognized for her contributions to the trolley problem thought experiment and her abortion-

related publications. She wrote a paper titled "Defense of Abortion". She raises the question of

whether the fetus' claim to life can ever be outweighed by other considerations. For example,

consider the mother's health. However, he uses a thought experiment to argue for abortion's

legality.

She goes into this hypothetical that you wake up in the morning and find yourself back-to-

back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to

have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical

records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped

you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can

be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. If he is unplugged from you now, he

will die; but in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment and can safely be unplugged

from you. Thomson takes it that you may now permissibly unplug yourself from the violinist even

though this will cause his death: the right to life, Thomson says, does not include the right to use

another person's body, and so by unplugging the violinist you do not violate his right to life but

merely deprive him of something—the use of your body—to which he has no right. "If you do allow

him to go on using your kidneys, this is a kindness on your part, and not something he can claim

from you as his due." For the same reason, Thomson says, abortion does not violate the fetus's

legitimate rights, but merely deprives the fetus of something—the use of the pregnant woman's

body and life-support functions—to which it has no right. Thus, by choosing to terminate her
pregnancy, a woman does not violate any moral obligation; rather, a woman who carries her

pregnancy to term is a 'Good Samaritan' who goes beyond her obligations.

Overall, abortion has always been a controversial topic that many people argue about.

However, deciding where one stands on abortion is quite difficult. Noonan believes that abortion is

ethically immoral because it is morally cruel to murder another person. Personally, I believe that no

one should be forced to have a child that they do not want and cannot properly care for, and that

legal abortions are better for both the child and the parents' futures; thus, I believe that abortions

are morally acceptable until the child is viable.

Bibliography

A&E Television Networks. (n.d.). Roe v. Wade: Decision, summary & background.

History.com. https://www.history.com/topics/womens-history/roe-v-wade

Blakemore, E. (2023, April 11). The complex early history of abortion in the United

States. History. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/the-

complex-early-history-of-abortion-in-the-united-states
Goodman, J. D., & Ghorayshi, A. (2022, July 20). Women face risks as doctors

struggle with medical exceptions on abortion. The New York Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/20/us/abortion-save-mothers-life.html

White, J. E. (2006). Contemporary moral problems. Thompson Wadsworth.