Questions for the 1st Writing Assignment

**Admin** · Admin Posts: 6 Join date: 2008-11-23

1. Discuss the different positions made on the issue of abortion (i.e.
pro-choice, pro-life, pro-abortion) by focusing on the various
assumptions which their proponents make and with which their
respective arguments proceed. Are the assumptions true/acceptable?
Why/ why not?

2. Take a stand on the issue of abortion by bringing into prominence
certain concepts/terms that are crucial/central in the debate. How do
you propose these concept/terms to be understood/used in the context
of abortion? Make sure to elaborate by giving examples and making
distinctions.

3. Identify certain inferences, deductions or assertions made on the
issue of abortion. Given the various assumptions and claims these are
based on, are those inferences/assertio ns valid/justified? Identify
some contradictions or inconsistencies, if any.

comia · Posts: 5 Join date: 2008-11-24 Location: manila

There are two basic arguments that of the pro- choice and the other pro-life, some would add another category placing pro- abortion as a whole separate identity of its own to which I personally do not agree because abortion is a choice, no woman for example has ever had to contemplate abortion unless she is a woman whose options are limited both for herself and her future baby, to define pro- abortion merely as agreeing that there should be one at any stage takes away that important precondition and to some extent demonizing abortion itself.

The “pro-life” group insists that a fetus is a person therefore it is entitled to have the same rights as normal adults do. The pro- life establishes that it is seriously wrong to kill any adult human being because in doing so, you would take away that person’s future as well. Point blank the group includes a strong religious stand that life begins at conception and that no life therefore should be taken unless it poses as a threat to another person. The problem with these arguments is that it is too broad and vague to account what makes one human. It follows a dogmatic arrogance always held that because we say so, it is so by those who consider themselves of moral authority. While it is true that a fetus might be human, it is not exactly a human being, a kangaroo’s fetus is a fetus, a cat’s fetus is a fetus, etc., to be a human being is to consider its relations and what is missing in the pro-life argument is this, the important relationship between the pregnant woman and the developing fetus. Sure it is easy to say that abortion is impermissible since it takes the future of that future baby away adding that killing a fetus would mean that it is alright to kill a baby too. Well first, one’s future is not exactly pre-ordained, life is not about just having to breathe it is about living a life with dignity that counts. There’s this one advertisement in an anti-abortion website ( and I think every other similar website) that shows the ultrasound of a baby in live 3G animation with exchanging captions saying this baby could be a doctor, a lawyer, a president etc. but we wouldn’t know because it was aborted. Looking at it I figured it was a serious attempt to humanize a fetus and clinch the undecided’s conscience by demonizing abortion and those who decides for it. I say again that it is living with dignity that counts, the Ad which is poetic at its best fails to see exactly what chance does that baby has of becoming either one of those things for example if it were born in a family of seven to a mother and father who earns a living as scavengers in some compound in Baseco? At best that child would have finished elementary until it is able to help its parents in scavenging at worst that child would end up in the streets, with a gang or a pimp and because no other information is available regarding reproductive rights, due mostly to the insistence of moral pundits, that child would risk being pregnant or impregnating someone at a young age until it has seven children or more thus repeating a life of hardship and misery. Let me be clear I am pro-choice and I am aware that some would easily negate that concrete example by sighting a person who was born in such environment but perhaps have persevered and made it and is now currently living in a mansion somewhere, which is true and I credit their achievement but that should not be a poster for anti-abortionists, the fundamental question of a woman’s right to choose remains, to allow the latter is misguiding, it is tantamount to saying that because Will Smith, Oprah Winfrey and Whoopi Goldberg are now successful Hollywood icons the American Black community should shut up and stop pressing for more equal opportunities and rights that in fact because a fellow African American has made it there is simply no racism at all. Off course this is false.

What is lacking in the pro-life argument is that they tend to restrict the debate in a moral arena but abortion is a case under reproductive rights which is also a socio-political question. So abortion must not be confined, it is also just as much a socio-political question. Child bearing must not be a woman’s burden alone, it is society’s as well. A society that is aware of its inequalities across gender and class has the responsibility to provide access to those who need it, in this case women. Nobody ever said that making the right choice is easy. Abortion legal or not is not easy, it is however necessary. Pro-life eliminates these factors, it is blindly optimistic in the dogmas they are enforcing. This ignorance is dangerous and oftentimes contagious; especially in the guise of faith. The pro-choice stand is more acceptable to me because it is able to fuse these two points, that of the moral and the socio-political. Morally it is permissible to have an abortion, it is less painful than having to push through with a pregnancy and watching the baby starve to death or as in the previous example, repeat a cycle of misery. Socio-politically it is permissible because society must have its share too of the women’s burden especially in the effect that material objective preconditions into having that baby live a life with equal opportunities cannot be met. Socio- politically, says Judy Simmons in Abortion: A Matter of Choice, we should only be concerned of an embryo’s right to life not more than a child’s quality of life and the things that destroy it, like war, genocide, classism, racism, unemployment, lack of medical care, and to the philosophically and ideologically advance perhaps even, the feminization of poverty.

Abortion however like every other reproductive health issues is not the answer to eliminating poverty neither does having one not ensure the woman a better life and freedom from all other chains that bind her. Womanity is a struggle and it is in the struggle, fighting and standing up and speaking out, that we become free. There are no illusions that say otherwise in this article. Likewise, no congregation of people should hold themselves a bastion of moral authority and decide who among us is immoral or not when it does not take part over the consequences of such action like child rearing. It is not only unfair, it denotes an institution overbearingly deciding on an issue which they have not even questioned properly. Their mode of inquiry is greatly flawed, their authority therewith on this should be forfeited to a large extent. Though that is to say a lot; the point mainly is to look at this in a more realist sense ultimately society defines the lives brought into this world. Susan Anthony, an American woman activist said and I quote “I detest those people who know exactly what God wants them to do, I notice that it almost always coincide with their own interests” .So do I.

De Ramos · Posts: 6 Join date: 2008-11-24

[justify]
A ‘fetus’ according to The New International Webster’s Dictionary Encyclopedic Edition, is the young in the womb of a viviparous animals in the later stages of development; specifically in the women, from the end of second month, prior to which it is called an embryo; unborn offspring. I believe, upon having this definition that a fetus is a human being, a “developing” human being. Every person has the right to grow and to develop into something and someone. But somehow, I’m bothered by the principle “only persons have the right to life”, for the word “person” itself is vague and ambiguous. Another arguable turning point of issue is the time at which a person had been said to come into existence has varied extensively.

There are plenty arguments regarding the criteria for determining what is and what is not a person. Too many to mention, but to wrap things up, some say that aside from the physical attributes- one must have the capacity to reason, do some complex communications, and a whole lot more just for him to be called a “person”. Stemming from this issue, let’s take the case of special children. They do not have that cognitive abilities like that of a “normal person” have, but we consider them human beings. Another one: the paralyzed, the deaf, the blind, and any individuals who are disabled, we all know that because of the “lack” of something in their physical package as an individual, they find it hard to communicate well, in a way that they can be best understood by others. I don’t think it is rightful to say that a fetus is not a person because he/it lacks this and that…

Opponents of abortion look anxious that if a fetus is not a developed person, then we are reasonable in considering it in any way at all. On the other hand, this does not follow. Non-persons do get some consideration in our moral code, though of course they do not have the same rights and privileges as persons have, plus having said that: it means that they don’t have moral liabilities although we cannot regard them as nothing or simply consider them in any way we want. Example: we have laws implemented for animals.

I cannot say that a fetus is a parasite and a woman has the right to defend herself simply by pulling out this innocent individual out from/of her womb. Why? First, let us take the case of the legality of abortion in the premise of lessening the birth with disorders and disability. If a woman chooses to abort a fetus because it is said to have such conditions, then it would entail a life that is easier to live for because there is this underlying belief and concept that a disabled or a child who has disorder is a burden both to the family and the society. Thus abortion will not prolong the agony of both the woman and the baby/fetus. However, this kind of action undermines the capacity of the latter to see if it could have a “future”. After abortion is done, it stops there: for the fetus. What if the defect is minimal or somewhat not disturbing? Still, it by hook or by crook depends on the case or scenario, what if the doctor predicted that the baby has the least chance of survival and the mother’s condition is in danger, by then we can say that it is somehow debatable. My point here is that: as long as the fetus, embryo, zygote or what so ever has the faculty to be born and develop and as long as chances are there, why suppress it’s right to do so? Being disabled is not being a “no-worth” individual. It may sound subjective, but each and everyone has his own purpose/s. Second, abortion is killing. The fetus is starting to take life inside the mother’s womb. Upon its withdrawal on an early stage, when it is not fully-grown, it deprives the right of that particular individual to grow. To kill is to deprive of life, life is a matter of changes and development, and to abort is to cause the death of the baby (that was supposed to advance and nurture).

[/justify]

bersamina.joshua · Posts: 6 Join date: 2008-11-24 Location: Manila

There are many assumptions made in constructing stands concerning the very controversial issue of abortion. And these assumptions are made or considered in such a way that it supports the given stand of a certain partisan. One example would be the assumption that life begins at conception. This assumption is used and quite abused by the conservatists; the very act of abortion is akin to murder when this assumption is considered to be true, since the life you took away during the conception stage is already a [human] life. Another example is the statement one cannot do so with one’s body if it affects other people adversely. This assumption could be used by the main rivaling parties; it only depends on how it is used in their arguments.
Thousands of propositions have already been made regarding the issue of abortion. Many have constructed their theories and arguments, and it is interesting to note how they attempted to make their stands. One such proponent was Jane English. Her method was to deconstruct the notion of what a person is since the issue of abortion and its very act concerns persons (i.e., the mother and the unborn person) and a person’s rights. She made assumptions regarding what a person is based on empirical and scientific data. Furthermore, she explored the essential characteristics of an individual in order for that individual to be considered a person. She examined other proponents’ criteria of personhood, be it derived from biological factors, psychological factors, social factors, even neurobiological factors. The, she draws her stands from the parallel case of the hypnotized man-guinea pig in order to elucidate on the notion of self-defense. One such assumption she made states that it is all right for a person to kill another person if he recognizes the threat of killing. In other words, killing or harming another individual could be justified if it was for self-defense; and inflicting harm is pardonable if its aim is for the avoidance of casualties and not retribution, even if the attacker/aggressor is innocent. In the end, she concluded that the biological basis of personhood is not sufficient in determining whether abortion is morally right or wrong, because biological development, as mentioned, is gradual. And she also concluded that regardless of the personhood of the fetus, abortion is “more” justifiable during the early pregnancy rather than during late pregnancy in a sense that during the late pregnancy the potential harm that could be inflicted is greater.
Another proponent, Don Marquis, used a somewhat deconstructive-scientific approach in determining the wrongness of abortion. He tried to weigh the standoffs between the conservatives and liberals by comparing and deconstructing their respective arguments. An assumption he used, however, states that he believes that whether or not abortion is morally permissible stands or falls on whether or not a fetus is the sort of being whose life it is seriously wrong to end. Thus, in his arguments, he tried to use the analytic approach in studying and discerning what a fetus is.
Susan Sherwin, on the other hand, constructed her arguments by using the feminist approach in dissecting the issue on abortion. She believed that bioethics has greatly obscured the feminist ethics, resulting in the more anti-feminist propositions regarding abortion as a choice. She then concluded that the moral discussions of abortion reflect a broader agenda than what is usually found in the arguments put forth by bioethicists. She furthermore concluded that only by reflecting on the meaning of ethical pronouncements on actual women’s lives and the connections that exist between judgments on abortion and the conditions of domination and subordination can we come to an adequate understanding of the moral status of a abortion in a given context.
Lastly, another interesting perspective is that of Laura Hershey, namely the disabiliphobiac perspective. Many mothers committing the act of abortion usually argues that the did so because they do not want their would-be child to experience miserable life as a disabled person. Laura Hershey just argues that in digging deeper, this argument does not only make abortion morally right, but it also presupposes the assumption that being a disable is not an option; that disabled people are a burden to society. What Laura recommends, however, is a social change that will remove all discrimination and prejudice against people or persons with disability.

Raval · Posts: 5 Join date: 2008-11-24

question no.3

There were lots of varied influences, deductions and assertions made on the issue of abortion, but basically the major deductions presented on the articles can be summarized by these two statements: 1. Abortion is wrong or impermissible, which could mean that it is wrong to kill a fetus and 2. Abortion is permissible, which could entail that abortion can be justified in some cases. And this could only be one or the other.
The questions of which is more valid or justified between the 2 conclusions will be dependent on how well each case presented their assumptions. For the first conclusion that abortion is wrong, I could summarize the argument presented through this:

1. The fetus is an innocent person - True
2. It is wrong to kill an innocent person - False
Therefore IT IS WRONG TO KILL A FETUS – the conclusion follows the assumptions but it is not valid

Assuming that the fetus is a person (this part here is quite problematic because the personhood of the fetus is still ambivalent, but for the sake of this argument let us assume that the fetus is really a person). The first statement “The fetus is an innocent person” is true but the second statement saying that “It is wrong to kill an innocent person” is false, and the reason for this is because it is not always wrong to kill a person especially in the case of self defense, like when you get attacked by an innocent hypnotized killer, you have the right to kill the attacker if it’s the only way to protect your life. This part here has been explained clearly by the first article of Jane English. To cut a long story short, even if this particular conclusion follows its assumptions, the conclusion itself is still invalid because of the falseness of the second assumption.

The second major conclusion presented on the article was that abortion is permissible. The deduction presented by the article can be presented through this:

1. The fetus is an innocent person - True
2. It is not wrong to kill an innocent person if it is self defense - True
Therefore IT IS NOT WRONG TO KILL A FETUS – it follows

Still assuming that the fetus is a person, the first assumption is true. The second assumption is likewise true because of the self-defense case. I have to give emphasis on this part though that by self-defense I mean creating an injury somewhat, but not enormously greater than the injury to be avoided. Meaning the pregnant women could only kill the fetus if the continuation of pregnancy is bound to inflict serious harm or suffering to her. Lastly, the conclusion follows and so this deduction is more valid and justified compared to the first one.
From a different light if we assume that the fetus is a non-person, then are we still bound to get the same validity for the second deduction?

1. The fetus is an innocent non-person - True
2. It is not wrong to kill an innocent person if it is self defense – True
*but since we treat non-person the same way we treat persons because of our so called systems of sympathies and attitudes that makes the ethical system work
3. It is also not wrong to kill an innocent non-person if it is self-defense – True
Therefore IT IS NOT WRONG TO KILL A FETUS – it follows

Assumption 1 is true, assuming of course that the fetus is considered as a non-person. Assumption 2 is likewise true but assumptions 1 and 2 alone will not suffice for the conclusion and so I integrated a 3rd assumptions which says “It is also not wrong to kill an innocent non-person if it is self-defense” I got these assumption from the idea that ethical systems must operate based on sympathies and attitude in order to make our moral principle function. That is, even if non-person such as animals have lower moral right compared to person, we would still not allow killing on general, regardless of whether they are person or non-person or in this case, regardless if it is a fetus(non-person). Finally, the conclusion would follow, and so even is we consider the fetus as a person or a non-person, whatever the case maybe, we are bound to get the same deduction that it is not wrong to kill a fetus. That is, abortion is permissible IF AND ONLY IF (yes, I said, if and only if) it endangers the life of the pregnant woman.

Abala · Posts: 6 Join date: 2008-11-24

I think we’d all agree that abortion is already a gasgas issue. But no matter how much the issue is debated on, there really isn’t any final answer, a consensus, among people or scholars.
What makes it so controversial?
How come people can’t put up a concrete, black and white, answer regarding the issue?
I believe one reason for this is the different definitions people use in dealing with the issue.
“What is a fetus?” is probably the first question that comes into mind. Pro-abortion and pro-life advocates have separate definitions.
A pro-life supporter would argue that a fetus is a person, a live human being. A pro-life supporter would discuss that a fetus shares some characteristics that children possess, that adults posses.
A pro-abortion supporter would say that a fetus is not the same as a person. If we follow Mary Anne Warren’s reasoning, a fetus is not a person because it doesn’t have the five features such as self-awareness and capacities for reasoning. A pro-abortion supporter would say that a fetus does not have the same faculties a person has.
“What is a person”? would probably come to mind next. Trying to define a fetus is very tricky that we end up trying to define another term.
Person means a biological being, a part of a certain species. Person means being part of a moral community, able to distinguish right from wrong. Person means having basic rights that must be honored and protected by other persons.
A pro-life supporter would say that a fetus is a person and that killing one is immoral, in the same way that killing an adult person is immoral. A child, a teenager, or an adult, a person, has his or her own future – his or her own set of experiences, activities, interests, and aspirations. Now, if an adult were killed, he or she would be deprived of the chance to have his or her future. A pro-life advocate would then argue that since a fetus has millions of possibilities in store for him or her, its death would deprive him or her of these experiences. Don Marquis, a professor of philosophy, believes that “the loss of one’s life is one of the greatest losses one can suffer”.
But the definition of person can still be very problematic. What if one kills an innocent person, would that be justified as moral or immoral? What if one takes a life of another on the grounds of self-defense?
Pro-abortion advocates believe that if a fetus endangers the life of its mother, abortion is the answer. If a mother would opt to abort the fetus since it could possibly harm her well-being, she is doing so in self-defense. There are those who believe that killing a fetus, without any threat to the mothers life, is wrong. If the fetus’ survival would provide to be of no inconvenience to people, then its abortion would be immoral.
Finally, there are those who believe that since a fetus develops in time, there is only a specific time wherein a mother is allowed to abort her child. Some believe that abortion is justifiable only early in on the pregnancy.
At some point, assumptions of pro-abortion and pro-life advocates are acceptable. If something would pose a threat, would people not take action? If people would want to gain experiences, will there be anyone to stop them? And I guess, maybe depending on one’s morals or set of beliefs, the definitions or assumptions made by people or philosophers may or not may be acceptable to him or her.
These are just some of the terms that philosophers try to define. This also shows some of the assumptions that people make when trying to find a stand regarding this issue. But the abortion debate rages on, with people trying to come up with more and more interpretations.

Penetrante · Posts: 6 Join date: 2008-11-24

The different positions on abortion make varying inferences which are not always justifiable considering the assumptions where they are based upon. Based on the readings provided for, below are some of those assertions and explanations whether I find them valid or inconsistent.

1. Those who are against abortion believe that to abort a fetus is to commit murder. This is based upon the assumption that a fetus, from the time of conception, is considered a human being having equal rights as adults do. This seems a valid reasoning, but as Jane English argues, "not all killings of human beings are murders." There are instances when it is permissible to kill an innocent person; in self-defense for example.

2. The pro-abortion position contends that it is always the woman's choice not to keep the baby. They are coming from the assumption that a "person" only appears on the scene at the time of birth, not at any stage of development while the fetus is in the womb. However, this overlooks the idea that the woman's freedom to choose ends where the baby's freedom to live begins. For even if the fetus, as the liberal position maintains, is not seen as a person, the fact remains that there are non-persons such as animals that are not supposed to be killed nor simply tortured. This inference seems unjustifiable.

3. Another assertion is Thomson's, that "the woman has a right only to be freed from the fetus, not a right to demand its death." This is reinforced by the self-defense model presented by English. According to her, "self-defense is for the purpose of avoiding harms rather than equalizing harms." During pregnancy, keeping the baby in the womb until it's time to give birth can sometimes cause health problems to the woman. For such cases, although the baby is innocent, the woman may justifiably opt to do an abortion to protect herself. Unfortunately, during early stages of pregnancy, there is no other way to free the woman that has a lesser harm to the fetus and with the same defensive effect as killing it. The woman's defense of herself here can only equate to killing the fetus.

[justify]

MANGALUS · Posts: 4 Join date: 2008-11-24

Delay Days

This is not the story of why my student number begins with “2005” but I am not graduating this summer. This is not a story of the end of innocence, wrong choices and broken dreams. This is the story of how a boy and girl learned big words like “responsibility,” “duty,” and “choice.” And like any other story worth telling, this story is all about a girl…

She was a small-town girl, born and raised in a highly conservative Christian family. She was studying to be a nurse someday, to save lives and make a difference. I just dropped out from a relatively forward-thinking boarding school. I was young and I was raring to dip my fingers in every bowl.

She loved the Beatles and listened to Elton John, Billy Joel and Michael Bublé. I loved the Rolling Stones and listened to Led Zeppelin, Skid Row and U2. She was obsessive-compulsive about hygiene, I did not know what hair conditioner was for. She was an athlete and a fitness buff, I was fourteen when I first smoked – smoked weed, that is.

A couple of months later by the grace of some irrational act of the Universe, she moved into my place. The next day, she was nagging like a hundred Mrs. Potato Heads from the Toy Story Trilogy. She nagged about the wet toilet seat, the uncapped toothpaste and the scattered heaps of paper that passes off as readings materials in the Great University of the Philippines.

Delay Day 11

“You and I, we are not exactly what you would call a ‘couple’ but we do get by. We have more than our share of fights and arguments. We are not lovers, I know. But above all else, we are friends and as friends, we have some form of responsibility to one another. Hindi tayo mga tau-tauhan lang dito. We are friends. Just so you know, I think I am pregnant.”

“It is your choice, your call. Not mine. This is a choice that you alone must make. Not mine. After all, it’s a woman’s world too, you know?”

“No, you are wrong. You are dead wrong. What I have growing inside me right now isn’t all mine – half of it is yours. Somehow, you too are tied to it. You have some form of duty to it, and by extension to me as well…”

“Assuming you make that choice.”

“And therefore, you too have a stake in it. Therefore, you have a say on how this story ends or begins...”

“Our choice.”

“Yes, OUR choice…”

Delay Day 12

“How do you feel? I mean, how do you feel about you – or us – on this…”

“I am not very sure about this. I don’t suppose life just goes on, with this in our hands. I can still take the June Board Exams. I can still finish this semester and graduate in March. I can still review. I think I can.”

“It doesn’t work that way – this changes everything. And I do mean it changes everything!”

“Don’t act like you are bearing the weight of the world on your shoulders! You are not a nurse. You do not know what pregnant women go through when they give birth. Do you know how many women die each day, giving birth?!”

“About 114 in every 1000 live births or so, at least in Southeast Asia…”

“And how many men die because of giving birth?!”

Delay Day 13

“Having a mini…”

“Having a what?!”

“I have a mini growing inside me right now. A mini-me… a beautiful mini-me growing inside me, and oh! I wish she gets my eyes! Or he could be a mini-you… a big, fat and funny mini-you growing inside me right now…”

“Or she could be a mini-us… lovely as his or her mother, strapping and charming as her father… I just wish she wouldn’t get you prissiness or your neurotic behavior.”

“If she is to be the grand woman you imagine her to be… she needs to have a good daddy beside her. You would have to take care of yourself. You would have to stop shooting up junk in your veins. You would have to quit smoking, drinking and drugs. You would have to eat better so you can live longer.”

“You have got to be kidding me! Now more than ever, I have this need to live forever. I have this sense of purpose I haven’t had in years. Oh! I want to be the bestest dad in the entire history of forever! I want to make every other father look like an idiot beside me. I want her playmates to tell her, ‘WOW!!! Ang cool naman ng daddy mo! Sana daddy ko na lang siya…”

“Still, I am not entirely happy about all this. Lose a little pride, throw away some dreams. Law school, being a columnist and writing a novel… I guess these are the things I am letting go for her, for you and for us. I would have to find a job… in a country where unemployed degree holders outnumber the unemployed non-degree holders…”

“Must we lament the end of our innocence? Must we mourn for what is lost? Shouldn’t we welcome another chapter in your story, my story – OUR story? It’s a whole new adventure for all of us!”

“Listen, our story doesn’t have to happen this way. It is still our choice, a choice we have yet to make! When you eat sunny-side eggs for breakfast, do you think of the chickens that could have been? When you eat balut – do you prefer the innocuous penoy or the ones with a whole beak and lost of feathers?! We eat because we have to – no regrets, no remorse. It is their lot to be eaten, it is their purpose. Ganyan sila nagkakaroon ng kaganapan!”

“If someone else’s story needs yours to be fully told, does it give you them the right to deny them realization? Kung kailangan ka ng isang tao para magkaroon siya nang kaganapan, ipagkakait mo ba sa ‘to sa kanya?!”

Delay Day 14

She slowly walked into the bathroom with a small white plastic contraption in her hand.

arroyo.queenie · Posts: 6 Join date: 2008-11-24 Age: 18

Abortion has become a timeless controversy involving wide range of sectors in the society. The main argument is always hotly debated within the sphere of assumptions and influence existing beyond groups of pro-life, pro-choice and pro-abortion.
The Pro-life keeps on arguing of how valuable the fetus might be, stressing the possibility of a bright future that waits for the tiny sibling suppose-to-be. The confusion whether fetus would qualify being a human or not quite serve as a hitch against the antiabortion stance, although in my opinion, they are in position to dominate this dispute since it is undeniable; the fact that in formation of fetus there exists an opportunity to live. If we base the status of the fetus on technical qualifications of humanitarian category, then it may probably not pass it, but if what we are searching is the morality beyond allowing a fetus or not to be born, then it is considerable to think that if not for the stage of a fetus, we will not be here. Having the opportunity to live offers the humankind chances to direct themselves to betterment and create personal preferences. Therefore, I agree that the assumptions of pro-life are by no doubt true and acceptable.

Pro-choicer claims that it is only wrong to take a life of a person or a member of human community, which obviously excludes the fetus. Fetuses on their account are not capable of having rationale and perceptions to the world. More likely, they claim that these organisms or parasites that inhabit the womb of a woman are no difference at all to an empty void, nor as of any value as a human organ. Although pro-choicer only intend to do good on women as they take the feminist side. They are only rendering choices for women who bare unwanted and untimely pregnancies. But still, I do not think it is acceptable neither appropriate to resort to the idea of aborting these tiny organisms that can possibly be born. They make a huge point when they argue the possibility for these fetuses to become less fortunate children, handicaps and future side-street dwellers, but still the chances of nurturing them well remains. No one can precisely predict what they may become, so who are we to judge them at the very instance? People may say that it is the right of the woman to decide since fetus exists within her, and yes I might agree that there may be circumstances where abortion can be acceptable. Instances like where the life of the mother is jeopardized or the child will suffer an incurable disease or disability. Hence, pro-choice is quite acceptable in aspect of making options available to women, but the ironic part is, choices are always available, access were always denied.

In connection to this, pro-abortion may somehow be reasonable. In process of this, it becomes a dilemma when the life of the mother is also in danger. Access to safe abortion is unavailable to poor communities where occurrences of unwanted pregnancies are more likely to be higher. It is only the rich and well-off that can avail quality and safe services. Either way you view it, abortion is still killing. But it may be considerable with support of valid and humanitarian reasons. But the very idea of allowing and legalizing abortion somehow creates the main quandary and issue of immorality. If abortion is to be legalized, then women who are accountable to improper behavior and unsafe sex are relief with the idea of simply disposing their babies whenever they want. Further worse is this may put also their lives in danger. Legalization and favoring of abortion opens many doors to immorality, and thus allowing more mistakes, leaving no room for rational and moral way of life. it can also possibly tolerate sexual abuse to women. Allowing abortion does not require all pregnant women to have their babies killed, rather, like the pro choice, it just suggest of a possible remedy. And yet pro abortion is extremist in nature, for just to defend its side, it will totally stand against and take any human bit or value at all from the fetus. In conclusion, pro abortion is never acceptable, for its sole reason is just to take away the worries of bearing a child.

Wrapping all these up, the answer to question of whether abortion is morally upright or not is not that far to be unveiled. As humans the greatest gift we could ever have is life, and everybody deserves to live one and experience it.

cañamo_ijikhanran · Posts: 6 Join date: 2008-11-24

In every debate, two opposing forces exist; the pros and the cons. Each side has its own position, has its own plan for offense and another plan for defense. The battle of ideas may result to a solution, or worse; to destruction. Some debates may be decisive over things, which may sometimes be influential, or may have a societal effect. One can debate over simple things, from a sweetness of candy for example, to complicated issues such as abortion. There are too many topics to talk about and to argue about.
When we speak of abortion, what usually pops out in mind? If I would ask people from the Church regarding the issue of abortion, then they would be hysterical after hearing it. This explains the clash of beliefs among human beings. The existence of the two opposing forces supports the progress of human there are millions of people and there are the debate on abortion has reached miles and miles of points. On every position, there are people who support the stand. The pros and cons argue for a cause; for the acceptance of their respective beliefs. In a classroom setting, it is assumed that the students have opposing responses regarding the question “Is abortion immoral?”
Philosophers tend to ask and ask to get answers. The search for answers is the trend which the people involved in a debate like this follow. An anti on abortion will state facts about the importance of life. There will be the accusation against abortion as murder, which is killing. The Christian doctrines and other religious teachings explain that killing in any form is not good, is not right. That is the stand of the antis of abortion. The idea of life itself may be perceived in different ways which may lead to another debate, to another set of arguments and discussions. The definition of a specific term is important in each battle. The opposing factions should play the same language game to be able to understand each side. But the factions really have different perceptions or definitions of terms. The pros on abortion have their own definition of killing, and the antis of abortion also have their own.
The pros on abortion believe in the fact that if the fetus will cause danger to the mother, then it deserves to be aborted. The clashing factions both defend life. The pros defend the life of the mother and other things to be affected if the fetus will be born, and the antis defend the life of the fetus, for it is believed that the fetus is a human being, hence he or she should live. The question of “What makes a human, human?” leads to a series of controversies.
In the moral aspect, the main focus is to know whether an act is right, or wrong. To kill, in a moral sense, is wrong. For Catholics, it is against the Ten Commandments. God teaches us the right things to do, and He explains what sins are. The assumption of the antis or the people against abortion can be accepted today. Among the religious people, there is a bigger chance of having a number of believers who oppose abortion. Religion plays a great role in shaping the lives of its followers. It can also influence the beliefs of a person, thus making him decide to be against abortion, for example. Christianity is global. It is assumed that the people against abortion, or the killing of the fetus inside the womb of a mother, are still increasing in number. Morality hits the trigger of thinking. There come the ideas of conscience and guilt. The beliefs of the people who are pro-abortion do not define their religion. It is still up to the mother to make her child aborted or not. Some people are pro-choice, from which the decision must come from the people involved, regardless of beliefs and other influencing factors. The choice of the mother is important because of she is the one who knows what will be the best for her and for her child. She may consider some things before deciding over herself and her child’s future. Deciding over something which involves life is very critical. Being pro-choice comes between pro-abortion and anti-abortion for the fact that it gives the mother the responsibility over her own life, and her child’s life. The choice will dictate what will happen.

barron · Posts: 7 Join date: 2008-11-24

Abortion is an issue that grew old as time pass but the debate over it is in a standstill. Two factions present differing views on this issue and continued to garner support for their cause. These groups offered arguments and assertions to support their point of views and to discredit the other one. Much of these offered statements are regarding the personhood of the fetus and the privacy of the woman’s body.

For some people, abortion is permissible. While for others, abortion is strongly opposed. Abortion is seen by some as a motive because of the considerations thought upon by the woman with regards to her needs and her situation. On the other hand, abortion is not seen as an alternative or an event to be even considered by those having serious considerations about their pregnancy. The thing is that the woman and or her environment makes a choice with regards to her pregnancy and that view points in society influence her decision.

To resolve, or intensify, the debate issue, the groups gave consideration on the status of the fetus. The personhood is debated upon wherein the groups are giving justifications about the fetus. According to Jane English, being a ‘person’ comprises certain factors such as biological, rational, social and legal factors. Of course, being a person not necessarily mean that above mentioned factors need to be present, as some lack in several areas. For the advocates of the anti-abortion, they determined that the fetus is a person and thus its rights need to be considered. They maintain that life begins at the moment of conception. On the other hand, those who are in favor of abortion assert that life begins at birth and that fetuses are not really persons and that this gives justification to discontinue its existence. But then the views these factions have regarding the concept of a person are inconsistent. Their views tend to be narrow or too broad and that this difference leads to no compromise for the two to agree.

Being pregnant put forward many considerations to the woman conceiving. She takes into account her situation, the status of the fetus (whether or not it has disabilities) and her future. As such, these then pose as the reasons why she chooses to abort. The pro-choice posit that the woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy as she possess the right to privacy and the fetus impinges on this right. In addition, this group states that the fetus imposes on the woman and that it doesn’t have the right to live inside her, as her body is her property and not of others. Thus the woman has an option of terminating her pregnancy.

In contrast, the pro-life maintains that the fetus is a human being and killing it would discontinue and deprive it for a future that it may experience. For this group, abortion is a form of killing and is immoral. They assume that these fetus or unborn child has a right to live and not just because a fetus exhibit no consciousness, it is not a human being.

I think that an individual has the right to do what he or she wants to do, on the conditions given by society, that is. The conceiving person has a right over her own body. She is free to do what she wants –considering abortion- but she must also consider her and the fetus’s interwined relationship. As it cannot decide for its own, the woman must take great care in deliberating her thoughts for their future. Decisions are hard to make but one must take the path where there is less negativity.

I think that abortion in some cases may be acceptable. Such as in instances of the pregnancy endangering the life of the person conceiving. In this I think that one must value the life of a person who contributes more to society rather than a potential person who may be attributed by some as the one who took away the life of a productive individual (the mother). This statement may change as the author’s consciousness is expanded. But then, abortion may not be seen as an option to be thought of carelessly. Fetuses with disabilities should not be looked upon as abortion material or should I say entity. They have a chance at life, although they may face discrimination and such, but they sometimes they can measure up to normal people. Conceiving a child is hard but introducing an individual or a potential person to a life that many have enjoyed experiencing is a noble act. But then, it all falls down to choice.

Ferrer JC · Posts: 6 Join date: 2008-11-24

Although initially I am against abortion, there are several instances or exceptions (example: when the fetus presents a grave threat to the mother’s life) wherein I am willing to take the other side as a last resort. However, I don’t feel strongly against those who have chosen to go through it.

Abortion is roughly synonymous to killing or taking life, based on Marquis’ discussion. The concept of abortion itself has not been thoroughly discussed in most of the literature. However, the article “Why Abortion is Immoral”, makes a certain connection between killing and abortion to arrive at a conclusion on why abortion is immoral. I believe that the fetus, since its conception, can be considered a person (or at least, can be included in the concept of a person), because of these two characteristics that I deem valuable: the presence of human life and the primary relationship of the fetus with the mother.

The concept of a person has not been clearly defined. There has been no single decisive factor that could encapsulate such a concept. However, in the article of Jane English, “Abortion and the Concept of a Person”, she does examine the concept of a person by enumerating several insights from various authors (presence of brain waves, gene structure, a concept of self, capacity for reasoning, self-awareness, complex communications). Furthermore, the concept of a person is composed of several factors namely, biological (descended from humans, having a genetic make-up, having a head, arms, eyes, capable of breathing etc.), psychological (perception, having a concept of self, etc.), rationality (the ability to reason and draw conclusions etc.), social (the ability to work in groups and respond to peer pressures etc.) and legal (being subject to law, having a name and citizenship etc.) factors. I do agree with the author’s claim that the concept of a person is “cluster of features, of which rationality, having self-concept and being conceived of humans are only a part”. Yet, I have to add the presence of human life in the concept of a person. Although some might make a claim against the concept of human life (example would be the human cancer cell culture that would make my principle too broad), I believe that the fetus belongs to a sub category of human life that has far greater value than any other thing that falls into the same category of human life (example would be a tissue, organ etc.). They would say: what difference does it make? Or how should the concept of the fetus be different than the other concepts of human life (say a cancer cell culture)? True, the fetus might seem like a mere zygote at first that would develop further, but the mere idea of it developing into a human— the fact that it will turn out to be a grown-up person someday with all the faculties that we have— adds the value and makes all the difference to me.

The concept of a person given by the authors is something that I consider “high-leveled” in the sense that the simplest criterion is considered trivial and is therefore not included in the area under discussion. The social factor should be subject to further interpretation. And the way I interpret it, there is already a certain degree of relationship that can be considered as something “social” between the fetus and the mother. Pro-abortion individuals think its okay to end the life of a fetus based on their belief that a fetus does not resemble humans or persons (a “non-person”) therefore, abortion is acceptable. The fetus, as I propose it to be interpreted or understood, is considered as an independent being (independent, because as I see it, the mother and the fetus cannot be taken as one whole entity, although most would see it that way) dependent (for nutrition etc.) on the woman who carries it. And that being the case, there is a specific relationship, no matter how early the pregnancy or how late it is, between the fetus and the mother. Because of the relationship and the “link” between these two entities (the fetus and the mother), the fetus becomes in a way, more of a person (or at least, it deserves to be included in the concept of a person).

Regarding the claim made by some that it is acceptable to end the life of the fetus if it may have possible birth defects so as to shield it away from the future hardships of life, I feel strongly against this. On a more personal level, I think the justification of ending a baby’s life just because it has “abnormalities”—that it cannot live a normal life and that it will face difficulties in life— assumes too much on what might happen. If the mother is afraid that the baby will undergo hardships as it grows up, well, to that I say, don’t we all? Yet somehow, we, and even those who have disabilities, manage to pull through.

I am against abortion, however, my stand may adjust depending on the circumstance. But if we were talking about abortion in the sense that it takes life away, then I would have to say I am truly against it. I am against it because of the simple fact that a helpless being’s life is terminated and that its future is taken away from it. The fetus was literally and figuratively deprived of life, the ability to live independently and denied the possibility to go through various human experiences. And this is something I cannot bear to live with, knowing that I refused a weak and vulnerable would-be child a stake on Earth. And although there are cases when some would justify abortion when they claim that it would be better for the baby to die than live in a world of poverty or what have you, we are never certain for sure how things will turn out to be.

SAGNIP · Posts: 6 Join date: 2008-11-25

question 3

One exmample of deduction would be (3)Killing the fetus is always wrong, while its assertions are (1)Fetus is an innocent person and (2)Killing an innocent person is always wrong. Validity is the truth of premisses entails the truth of conclusion. Using the rule of inference, the argument is valid since the argument is in the form of hypothetical syllogism. This means that in premise (1), fetus entails/then an innocent person, while in premise (2) killing an innocent person entails/then wrong. Deducing the conclusion to killing the fetus entails/then is wrong.

Another case would be Using Thompson’s self-defense model, the woman has a right to be freed from the fetus, not a right to demand the death of the fetus. I should say this is true. Since in “Abortion and the concept of a Person” article, Thompson’s self-defense model clearly states and justifies the possibilities or instances of using abrtion. Self-defense according from the article is for the purpose of avoiding harms rather than equalizing harms.

Further is the If fetus is not a full-fledged person, then we are justified in treating it in any way at all. But according to the article, this deduction is false. Due to our moral code, we are not justified to treat fetus in any way even if it is not a full-pledge person. In my opinion, there is an inconsistency in how do we define a full-pledge person. What could be the characteristics that defines a full-pledge person. In this case, the statement possibly classify person in a biological category.

Forth, fetus is a human being. Deducing the statement into abortion is wrong. Here, I should say that there a lacking premise that will explain what a human being is. Apparently, from the iven statement, the premise is not connected to the conclusion.

Another example would be since a fetus posesses a property, the possesion of which in adult human beings is sufficient to make killing an adult human being wrong, abortion is wrong. I should say that the statement may be correct, however there is an inconsistency in how we deal with the fetus. Is the fetus a person? Does a fetus really and has the right to posess a property?

Further, most feminists believe that the women concerned are in the best position to judge whether abortion is the appropriate response to a pregnancy. According to Sherwin’s “Feminist Analyses of Women and Abortion” article, the woman has the right to choose whether or not making use of abortion, for she knows and weighs significant factrs during her pregnancy. Is should sa that thestaement is false. Because the phrase, most feminists believe.. entails its subjectivity. That is why validity is difficult to find.

The conclusion therefore, it is important to consider how proposed policies on abortion fit into general patterns of oppression for women was deduced from the premisses gender-neutral accounts of pregnancy are not available; pregnancy is explicitly a condtion associated with the female body; and because only women experience a need for abortion, policies about abortion affect women uniquely. I should say that the argument is true. But there is a lacking premise that could suffice what is special about women aside from its capacity to bear a child.

Lastly, (3) Feminists aacounts of abortion emphasize the importance of protecting womens rights to continue or to terminate pregnancies as each sees it. The soundness of the argument is accurate. For feminists, (1) A fetus is not a person, because it does not developed sufficiently in their capacity for social relationships; and (2) Persons are members of a social community that shapes and values them, and personhood through interactions and relationships with others. As clearly defined by the feminists, a fetus should interact and has a relationship eith others to able to be called a person.

LOPEGA · Posts: 6 Join date: 2008-11-25

Take a stand on the issue of abortion by bringing into prominence certain concepts and terms that are crucial/central in the abortion debate. How do you propose those concepts/terms to be understood and used in context of abortion. Make sure to elaborate by giving example and making distinctions.

I presuppose that the moral permissibility of abortion depends on the moral status of the fetus. The moral status of the fetus will be based on whether or not I can establish that a fetus is a person or a human being.
From my own point of view, killing human being or a person is wrong. A fetus is neither a person nor a human being. Therefore abortion is permissible.
The concepts and assumptions that will be discuss below were taken from the articles of J. English, D. Marquis and S. Sherwin.
On the first place what makes a human a human being? A being is one which values its future and continues to value its experiences. It is assumed that something can not be valued unless it is valued by someone. This implies that fetuses which neither have the concept of a future nor experiences to be continued, do not give value to such things. Thus fetuses fall outside the category of being a being. In addition, something is a being only after a process of development. Fetuses are microscopic and virtually indistinguishable to the unaided eye during the early stages. This implies that in the first trimester of pregnancy, all fetuses are not yet human beings. Although at later stage of pregnancy, fetuses may physically resemble that of babies with toes, heads, etc. , still fetuses have a wide range of differences, not just biologically compared to the newly born and/ or adult ones.
On the other hand, what constitutes a “person”? I assumed that the concept of a person can be captured in a necessary and or sufficient condition. We define person with a condition of being a social category. Persons can interact and establish relationship with others. Persons belong to social community where that community shapes and values them. Fetuses are not persons because they have not developed sufficiently their capacity for social relationships. Fetuses may have established a certain undefined relationship to its mother. However, such relationship is distinct from an interpersonal relationship which is the basis of being a social category of a person. While, compared to newly born infants who can interact and has the capacity to establish a relationship with the people and the environment around him/her.
Based on the concepts we established above, fetuses are neither considered persons nor beings.

Alegre,CB · Posts: 6 Join date: 2008-11-25

Abortion is one of the moral issues that serve as a hot topic for public debate. Different positions were created in the issue of abortion. The pro-life group considers two assumptions in claiming that abortion is not justified. First, assuming that a fetus is a person, pro-life supporters just like Judith Jarvis Thomson in her article “A Defense of Abortion”, believes that a fetus is an innocent person and the conclusion that killing it is always wrong. In this claim, the pro-life group considers the fetus as a person. So what does person really mean? At this point, it is important to know the definition of a “person”. Philosophers normally use the term “person” as a moral and normative term. It refers to those who are members of our moral community, those who have certain basic rights that must be honored and protected. Typically, the concept of a person that can be found in Jane English’s article entitled “Abortion and the Concept of a Person” includes certain biological, psychological, rationality, social and legal factors. Being innocent and having the rights of a person, pro-life group insists that abortion is a crime. It is almost equivalent to murder. Moreover, they believe that abortion is like destroying the fetus’ chance of having a good future. Then, assuming that a fetus is not a person, pro-abortion might say that abortion is permissible since the fetus does not belong to the community or to the society, however, for the pro-life group, considering the assumption that a fetus is not a person and it has no rights equal to a person, it does not follow that killing non-persons is morally right because non-persons, based on English’s article, do get some consideration in our moral code. I also agree with Wittgenstein that the best picture of the human soul is the human body and even after death, we still observe elaborate customs of respect for the human body. So it is appropriate that we show respect to the fetus as the body continuous with the body of a person. For me, this assumption is acceptable since fetus, as an innocent person, should really get the chance of living. Also, I agree with Don Marquis in his article entitled “Why Abortion is Immoral?” that abortions, with few exceptions, are immoral. Marquis also argues that fetuses have the same moral status or moral standing as do adult persons. Furthermore, Marquis’ assumption that the loss of one’s life is one of the greatest losses one can suffer is no doubt true. The loss of one’s life deprives one of all the experiences, activities, projects and enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted one’s future. Therefore, killing someone is wrong primarily because the killing inflicts (one of) the greatest possible losses on the victim.

However, there are times that killing innocent people is permissible just like the case of self-defense. In this case, I think self-defense is just right if a person really wants to avoid the harm rather than equalizing it. Moreover, in the case of abortion, there are times that the fetus will impose danger to the pregnant woman. At this point, I think abortion is somehow permissible if and only if the choice of the mother is whether she would like to save her own life or she would like to give the fetus a chance of living.

Another position on the issue of abortion is pro-choice. Pro-choice group believes that the pregnant woman has the choice on whether she wants the fetus to live or not. This group also believes that abortion is not morally wrong because they do not consider the fetus as a person. Not being a person, the fetus has no idea of what the world really is. Fetus, for them, does not belong to the society, thus, it has no basic rights to consider. The loss of a fetus will not result to a great impact especially when the life of the pregnant woman is at risk.

For me, the assumption of the pro-choice group is acceptable in just few cases. If the life of the mother is at risk, then the mother has the right to choose whether she allows the fetus to live or not. However, if the fetus does not impose any threat or danger to the pregnant woman, then I think the assumption of the pro-choice group is not sufficient to justify abortion.