Table of contentsArgument: Philosophy: Counter-arguments: the liberal vision of abortionCounter-argument: the problem of “potential” lifeConclusion:BibliographyIn America, Abortion is the subject of heated debate in the United States. the daily lives of many women. Since the Roe v. Wade decision, protests have erupted against the use of abortion. Those who protested the measure were called “pro-life” supporters. Although it is a sensitive subject, the debate touches many areas of life. Whether it's on the news, in newspapers, or in Congress itself, abortion is a relevant debate that deserves to be addressed. I believe that women everywhere should have free and unrestricted access to abortion, as long as the fetus depends on the mother for survival. However, many will disagree with this. These arguments include those of a moderate and a conservative. These will be presented in this argumentative essay, as I detail the fight for and against abortion. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essayArgument: The right to control one's body is an entity well respected by the laws and constitutional rights in force in America. However, in the case of abortion, the right to choose one's body is violated by those who disagree with the action. Means of removing the right to choose one's body would reduce women as persons in the eyes of the law. Since men are able to make unrestricted choices about themselves, women would be at a disadvantage compared to their gender counterparts. Prohibiting women from making a choice such as aborting their fetus could be said to be turning back the clock. Controlling the bodily decisions of others therefore reflects that of an era before women's rights, since women have been considered equal to men in the eyes of the law since the 19th Amendment. In America, everyone has the freedom to choose for themselves. This is especially true with the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade. In this case, abortion was legalized throughout America. Thus, allowing women to have the freedom to choose what to do with their bodies. This established the complete and unequivocal freedom of women over themselves. However, this concept is starting to change. Those who try to prevent women from having abortions are infringing on the fundamental right to control one's own body. This is why I argue that abortions should be allowed, as long as the baby depends on its mother to survive. If the baby does not depend on its mother for development, it is not part of her body. The dependence of the fetus on the mother's body is the key factor here. If the fetus grows and survives only because the mother provides it with necessary nutrients, then the fetus is part of the mother's body. So, until the fetus reaches a state of viability where it can be independent of the mother's body; the mother has the final decision on the life of the fetus. According to embryologist Judis Venuti, a baby is fully functional and developed at 39 weeks. Thus, abortions should be allowed up to the point of viability of 39 weeks. This is to avoid any infringement of women's right to choose their body. Philosophy: My argument for abortion can be supported by many philosophers, including Kant. Kant's ethical theory is one of the most referenced for understanding the morality of behavior and thoughts. According to the author of Doing Ethics, Lewis Vaughn, Kantian ethics is based on the use of reason and logicto determine whether actions are morally right or not. It is with good reason that Kant creates the concept of moral law derived from the categorical imperative. A categorical imperative can be described as “acting only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will it to become a universal law (Vaughn 133).” Therefore, if an action can be applied to everyone and does not disadvantage anyone, then the act is "permissible." This is where the aspect of consistency is important in being able to determine whether something is morally right or wrong. If an action cannot be applied universally to all humans, it is not morally correct. This concept of categorical imperative corresponds to my view of abortion. Consistency should be one of the main reasons why abortions should remain legal. If those who oppose abortion rely on protecting the life of the unborn child, this would be inconsistent and therefore immoral. If the law requires a woman to carry her fetus to term, the life of the fetus would be protected, but not that of the mother. She would be forced to carry a baby until it was born, whether or not it affected her quality of life. Therefore, banning abortion would protect the life of the fetus, but not that of the mother. Concluding that it would be inconsistent and therefore immoral to force a mother to carry a fetus to term, proving why abortions are determined to be moral. Kant's second version of the categorical imperative is the means-to-an-end principle. Kant demonstrates that humans are special because of their ability to think rational thoughts and have free will. Because this concept is unique to humans, the species is considered special compared to other animals. Because Kant views humans as special, he advises that we should all treat each other with deserved respect. To do this, we should avoid using people as “just a means” to getting what they want. To be “merely” used as a means means to be manipulated in order to benefit others. Using people would be considered disrespectful to other human beings, making this action immoral. This shows that respect for human autonomy is of great importance to Kant's ethical theories in what it means to be moral. Kant's second version also aligns with my view on abortion, because it protects the mother's ability to act autonomously over her body. As abortion critics threaten to force mothers everywhere to have full-term babies, doing so would constitute an attack on the mother's autonomy. A mother not being able to make decisions about her body would be defined as manipulation. With laws prohibiting mothers from having abortions, the government is manipulating the mother's free will. This is the case of Ohio's “Heartbeat Bill”, which prohibits mothers from having an abortion after the 20th week of pregnancy. The article published by the New York Times shows how the government manipulates a mother's free will. To do this, they limit the choice of when a mother can have an abortion by developing strict legislation. Here, the government uses mothers who want abortion “simply as a means.” This can be concluded because, in an effort to protect the conservative beliefs that govern state law, they are manipulating a woman's freedom of choice over her body. It would therefore be immoral to show that forcing mothers to carry a baby to term against their will. If choosing to have an abortion is her choice, others should respect that choice, because she deserves it because she is a human being. may object for various reasons. The liberal perspective is one of the biggest criticisms of the argument I havepresented. Liberals, as defined by Lewis Vaughn, are those who believe that a fetus is not a human being until after birth. The group believes that the fetus is part of the mother's body. Conclusion that mothers should be able to abort their fetuses up until birth. In the argument presented in the book Doing Ethics by Lewis Vaughn, liberals admit that killing an innocent person is wrong. However, according to liberals, the fetus is not a person. Thus making abortion authorized at any time during pregnancy. The liberals' reasoning for not recognizing fetuses as human beings is inspired by Mary Ann Garenne. The criteria for what it means to be a person can be found in the philosopher's thesis, The 5 Necessary Conditions for Personality. This list would include requirements such as “having awareness, ability to reason, motivated activity, ability to communicate, and presence of self-concepts and self-awareness.” Because the fetus fails to do any of these things, liberals argue that it is not a human being. Thus, the mother can abort her fetus at any time during the pregnancy. This makes abortion permissible because if the fetus is not a person, it cannot be murder. Although these arguments are valid, this liberal argument has many flaws. The way they determine what a person is is inconsistent in many ways. Consider the criteria listed above: “to be labeled as a person, one must have the ability to communicate.” However, this is not true in many cases. For example, what happens when a person is classified as severely disabled, rendering them unable to communicate? Is society neglecting their status as a person and allowing others to kill it? No, they are still considered human beings. Following their argument would mean that liberals support the idea of ​​being able to kill those who are severely mentally disabled, as if they cannot communicate, they are not people by that standard. This would therefore be inhumane and contradict their previous agreement that it is not right to kill innocent people. A disabled person's inability to communicate does not disqualify their personhood, just as the inability to speak about a fetus should disqualify their personhood. Thus, to assert that this criterion is what actually determines personality would be hypocritical. If it is not right to kill disabled people due to their inability to communicate, why would it be right to kill a fetus at any point during pregnancy? The answer is that it would not. Instead, it would be more reasonable to determine at what point in pregnancy the fetus becomes a human being. Coming back to my argument for viability, that would be about 39 weeks. At this point in pregnancy, fetuses are fully developed into a baby and are just beginning to gain weight, according to embryologist Judis Venuti. Because they are fully grown and have all the physical and chemical aspects of a person, so this would make the fetus a person at this stage. Showing why a point of viability of pregnancy is a better way to determine when abortion is appropriate and when it can be classified as murder. Counterargument: The Issue of “Potential” Life An argument that has gained popularity among those who oppose abortion is the issue of “potential” life. This argument is best summarized by Bertha A. Manninen, professor of philosophy at Arizona State University, in her article “Philosophy, Ethics, and the Humanities in Medicine.” According to Manninen, she argues that abortion is immoral on the grounds that the fetus has the potential to become a human beinghuman. As a human being, the fetus must be respected and given the right and protection to live. Manninen defends his belief with the following argument: "the power...the power which he [actually] possesses by virtue of his specific constitution" to become a being of a certain kind. In other words, X is a potential Y if X has the power to become Y; that X will become Y, if he lives long enough. Here, she said, there is nothing to misunderstand. If the fetus is given the chance to live long enough, it will become a person. It’s less of a “potential” or a “possibility” – it’s more of a fact of life. For example, if you let a caterpillar grow long enough, it will become a butterfly. There is no chance that the caterpillar is anything other than a butterfly. For this reason, the fetus deserves the rights given to any person, because it is clearly a human being, but in a different form. Thus, Manninen states that because fetuses are humans, abortions should not be permitted at any time. If this is the case, it is possible to take the life of a human. This therefore means that abortion would be classified as a form of murder. Although the argument for the “theory of potential life” is applicable, there are gaps that need to be filled. One of the most glaring problems is that Manninen's argument is that she views fetuses and adults as deserving of equal rights. This is clearly problematic, because even a newborn does not have the same rights as an adult. This idea was demonstrated by philosopher Ronald Munson in his argument Intervention and Reflection: Fundamental Questions in Medical Ethics. According to Munson, it is false to say that because an entity has the "potential" to be something, that does not mean that it has equal rights to what it will be. He further explains this concept with the example of a child born in America. Technically, this child is a “potential” voter, but is still not treated as a voter because you have to be 18 to vote. Therefore, asserting that just because a fetus has the potential to be a human being does not mean it has rights as a human being. Obviously, fetuses are not the same thing as an adult person, and for this reason they should not be afforded "full and equal moral status (Vaughn 230)." This also applies to the case of sperm and egg. If we follow Manninen's argument, sperm can "potentially" develop into a baby and therefore should be treated with the rights of a human being. The thought process would mean that contraception that kills sperm would be murder. This is clearly a far-fetched belief that shows how unreasonable the theory of potential life can be when applied to real-world scenarios. Thus, the defense that abortions should never be permitted in cases where it has the “potential” to be human is ignored. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a personalized article from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Conclusion: Overall, the choice of whether or not to have an abortion is not easy. According to the Washington Post, nearly half of pregnancies in the United States are unplanned. This leaves many women in difficult situations. Unplanned pregnancies force mothers to make difficult choices about the status of their fetus. Whether a woman chooses to keep the baby or not, it is important that she has the choice to decide what is best for her. This fundamental right to one's body is something that many want to take away. Having full autonomy in the decisions of one's body is a right granted to every human being. To fall..