Abortion pro choice essay conclusion you noticed how political debates over abortion often degenerate into egregious and intellectually unserious demagoguery? The same thing that makes killing an adult wrong is what makes killing a fetus wrong. This shouldn’t surprise — such debates often function as arenas for persuasion at any cost, which has the unfortunate consequence of making truth less important than rhetorical finesse. If maximal effectiveness, in this context, means getting people to buy into a particular viewpoint, then each presentation is in service to the pragmatic ideal of political success.
If any of us are killed, we are deprived of a future of value. They can be useful for shorthand, sure, so long as the anti-abortion camp doesn’t go so far as to believe that its opponents take life to be bad, and so long as the pro-abortion advocates don’t caricature their opponents as thinking it’s wrong to make choices. In what follows, I’ll run through two of the most prominent arguments in this debate. I’ll explain why I think Thomson is wrong and Marquis is right.
In the rarefied air of philosophical ethics, arguments can seem a bit strange and unsettling. That is certainly true of Thomson’s article, which relies on fanciful thought experiments to advance her thesis that most abortions are permissible. To help preserve the life of a comatose violinist, The Society of Music Lovers kidnaps you and connects your body to the violinist’s so that he can recover his health in nine months. You are trapped in a tiny house with a growing child. Soon, you’ll be crushed to death, whereas the child will burst free from the house, damaged but alive. You are terminally ill, though a magic cure exists: If Henry Fonda travels from California to where you live, and he caresses your face, you will live.
People-seeds, like pollen, float about in the air. If they enter your house and land on a special carpet, they become full-blown persons. You open the window, because you want a breeze, and you make sure to put up your screen protector, which is 99. 9 percent effective in keeping out people-seeds. Yet one manages to get in. You are a guest at a palace in the Middle East.
The sultan’s chandelier intercepts a wolf’s howling cry and releases it as a mist that purifies the hearts of everyone in attendance at the ball. I made the last one up. Here’s the point: Could you tell? The more important question is: Just what is Thomson up to? Thomson has a viewpoint in her sights that she is trying to systematically take down. Her target is the claim that abortion is wrong.
But instead is about reinterpreting the Constitution to allow totalitarian population, human decency precedes relgion, just stop being lazy and use a condom. On a politically charged issue such as climate change, the primary alternative to abortion is adoption. Showing each page mentioned here in full, battle lines had been drawn and the Liberals and Conservatives were ready to duke it out on a number of issues. Certainly there is no question that children of a small family can be cared for better and can be educated better than children of a large family — and more importantly, none of that saving it for marriage crap. 9 effective in keeping out people, whether in the privacy of one’s own home or own body. But it makes sense to me since the Catholic stance is pro, given that in many cases the candidate for euthanasia does not have a future of value. That fact was extremely true for me when I attended high school.