John nurtured. If nurturing isn’t given, then the

        John T. Noonan’s article “An Almost
Absolute Value in Human History” argues why abortion is morally wrong. Noonan
thinks that abortions are “cruel and selfish.” The only situation Noonan
supports for getting an abortion is if the UDH is affecting the mother’s
health. I wonder would Noonan support a situation like this (Amniocentesis at
week 6 reveals that the fetus has Tay-Sachs disease – a gruesome and invariably
fatal genetic disease). This disease isn’t affecting the health of the mother,
but the fetus would not be able to survive outside the womb and be born
stillborn. Noonan says a UDH has some type of moral status and killing the UDH
is morally wrong. Noonan central question in this article is “How do you
determine the humanity of a being?” Noonan says that UDH possess some genetic
code after the stage of conception. In order to determine if lawmakers should
legalize abortion, Noonan uses viability as the argument. Viability is if the
UDH can survive outside of the womb. This criterion wasn’t a good one. Noonan
says, “the perfection of artificial incubation may make the fetus viable at any
time.” In order for a UDH to survive outside the womb it needs to be nurtured.
If nurturing isn’t given, then the UDH won’t have a good chance of surviving
outside the womb. Noonan gives three other criteria for determining the
humanity of the UDH. Experience is another criterion. The UDH has to have some
kind of experience to be determine some moral status. Noonan says, “A being who
has had experience, has lived and suffered, who possesses memories, is more
human than one who has not.” I disagree with this because it seems like older
humans are more “Human” that younger ones since they have more experience than
younger people. UDH are experiencing things while developing in the womb. Noonan
thinks that a UDH has some moral status if it is wanted and the way it
interacts with the society. If we were using virtue ethics for Noonan’s article
they would agree that abortion is morally wrong. Abortion wouldn’t stand up to
the high moral status of virtue.  On the
other hand, Judith Jarvis Thomson’s article “A Defense of Abortion” argues in
favor for abortion. Her argument makes it hard to come to conclusion if
abortion is morally wrong. Thomas has a simple argument that says “Every person
has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has
a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body…” She uses the example
with being connected to the violinist. You have the right to either stay
connected to the violinist or be disconnected, and a mother as the right to
have an abortion. Thomas pro-choice article gives you the right to do whatever
you want, and Noonan article says what you choose to do is morally wrong and
unacceptable.

        Margaret Olivia Little’s article “The
Moral Permissibility of Abortion” is similar to Thomas article. They both are
pro-choice for abortion. Little says, “I believe that early abortion is fully
permissible, widely decent, and, indeed, can be honorable.” Little would
support a situation if contraceptive failed. The mother isn’t obligated to
continue the pregnancy because the contraceptive failed to work. Although
Little doesn’t think any reason to abort a UDH is a good one, the mother is
morally obligated to do what she wants. Little thinks its okay if a woman
doesn’t want to bring a fetus into a bad environment or an unwelcoming
atmosphere. Little’s opinion on abortion
is the woman is responsible for the existence of the fetus, but she does
not make the fetus worse off in any way because without her it never would have
existed. Little believes if you are irresponsible and get pregnant, that
doesn’t mean you have to give birth. Little doesn’t think any reason to
consider abortion is a good enough reason to do it. Sidney Callahan’s
article “A Case for Pro-life Feminism” argues four main ideas for the pro-life
side of abortion. The first idea is the right to control one’s own body. She
uses the example no one can force someone to donate their organs. A woman is
not obligated to go through with her pregnancy. Someone who is pro-choice would
support this claim. Callahan believes even if a
one has a situation that is rape that they have moral obligation to keep the
baby. She thinks that the right to
control one’s own body cannot be extended to end another’s life. I think since
the fetus belongs to the woman and is in her body she has the right to abort or
keep the fetus. The second claim is the importance of autonomy. Autonomy
is the quality or state of being self-governing.
All person’s personal choices must be respected. Callahan mentions that
“Morality is not confined to contract agreements of isolated individuals.” The
pro-choice side would say that the woman is morally obligated to either keep
the fetus or abort. The pro-life choice would support the fetus claim. The
fetus has some moral claim to life and shouldn’t be aborted. Callahan says the
woman needs to accept her “burdens”. The third claim is the contingent value of
fetal life. Callahan claims that the fetus “must be invested with maternal
valuing in order to become human”. Human life is valuable. She claims that UDH
have high moral status no matter the situation. The fourth claim is women’s
rights to social equality. Social equality is women being able to compete and
participate freely just like men. If abortion was illegal, the women would have
to bear the burden of the UDH unlike the father. Women should be able to have
casual sex without having to think about the chance of getting pregnant.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

        Rosalind Hursthouse’s article “Virtue
Theory and Abortion” uses virtue ethics to discuss different views on abortion.
She believes the status of the fetus is
irrelevant to virtue theory as it is a very difficult thing to answer. She says
that abortion can’t be compared to a haircut. If you have a right to do
something, that does not mean it cannot be callous. Using virtue theory, you
have to decide if your decision is virtuous. A virtuous woman wouldn’t agree to
getting an abortion because it wouldn’t be right. Our attitudes about the fetus
change as it develops, when it is born, and as the baby grows. Hursthouse is
not defending abortion but only showing how one would argue using virtue
theory. Edward A. Langerak’s article “Abortion: Listening to the Middle”
discuss moderate views on abortion. Langerak
potentiality principle makes abortion morally problematic. Liberals offer fetus
a little claim to life. According to Langerak “A potential person is not simply
a set of blueprints, it is an organism that itself will become the actual
person toward which it is already developing.” Later term UDHs should have a
high morally respect towards aborting it. The UDHs are already a full human
being. Langerak has four morally relevant stages of UDHs: implantation,
quickening, viability, and birth. Implantation is the act of conception.
Quickening is “When the fetus begins making perceptible spontaneous
movements (around the beginning of the
second trimester), its shape, its behavior, and even its
beginning relationship with the mother and the rest of society.” Viability is
how the fetus is living outside of the womb. Birth.

        Singer
and Wells’s article “Ectogenesis” consider the pros and cons of ectogenesis.
Ectogenesis is the growth of an organism in an artificial environment
outside the body in which it would normally be found. Using ectogenesis would
prevent women from having abortions. Singer-Wells think that ectogenesis would
be accepted if it gave the baby a better chance of life. They also think that
ectogenesis would degrade a woman’s value. Women are known for child-bearing.
If ectogenesis is created, then they wouldn’t have to birth the children.
 Ectogenesis also have negative effects. Scientist could grow babies just
for their organs.  Maureen
Sander-Staudt’s article “Of Machine Born uses feminist approaches to ectogenesis.
Sander-Staudt feels that “Ectogenesis is a gender issue”. They feel as if
ectogenesis is sensitive to gender. Sander-Staudt think women’s bodies are
unique. They said, “The body of a woman often knows automatically how to
nurture and gestate a child even when women themselves and the experts are
ignorant.” I think that ectogenesis has its pros and cons. If more research is
done it might be a good idea to create ectogenesis. I think the debate on
abortion is going to continue forever.

Abortion is a controversial issue that has been
very big in today’s society. People have been having rallies and protest about
being pro-choice or pro-life for abortion. It is very difficult to decide if
abortion is morally right or wrong. Should the United
States embrace (and work towards the development of) artificial wombs as a
solution to the traditional abortion debate, or should continue the pro-life
vs. pro-choice paradigm? An artificial
womb is a hypothetical device that would allow for extracorporeal
pregnancy or extrauterine fetal incubation by growing an embryo or fetus
outside the body of an organism that would normally internally carry the embryo
or fetus to term. I think that the United States should continue the pro-life
vs pro-choice paradigm. An artificial womb has its pros and cons. Using
ectogenesis would need a lot of research done to see the benefits and effects
on human life. Ectogenesis would take away the role of child-bearing from
women. Ectogenesis would make organ harvesting bigger than it is today. If
ectogenesis could stop babies from being stillborn and having certain illnesses
I probably would be all for it. The pro-life vs pro-choice paradigm is going to
continue forever because everyone has their own strong opinions on abortion.
Even if lawmakers made abortion illegal women still would find a way to get rid
of the baby. Utilitarianism would consider the maximum pleasure but for this
situation I don’t think that would be a good idea.

Critics would probably say that ectogenesis would
solve all the problems of abortion. Women wouldn’t have to have their babies
and could keep their nice figure.