when in doubt, stick it out...or go Judeo-Christian on their ass
It's very nearly 7am, and I didn't sleep last night at all. I did however write a damn good paper for philosophy/ethics considering that I really can't stand the class.
It's due in two hours but I'd appriciate some feedback anyway, so I'm sticking it in this post.
Wendy is six months pregnant when she and her husband learn that she’s developed a pregnancy complication called, “Clamber’s Syndrome.” Because of this condition Wendy must carry the fetus to within three weeks of full term in order for it to survive but she is at risk of developing permanent paralysis, to the point that she could loose the ability to walk, if the pregnancy continues, the risk of which increases as the pregnancy continues to about 10% by the time she reaches tree weeks from full term. If she doesn’t develop the paralysis then nothing bad will happen.
Bob wants her to get an abortion for a few reasons. Wendy could become extremely depressed if she were paralyzed, the pregnancy is the result of failed contraception which negates any responsibility they have toward the fetus, they wouldn’t be able to handle the cost of raising a child as well as the partially insured medical expenses from the pregnancy on their combined salaries.
This paper shall argue that it would be morally wrong for Wendy Thornson and Bob Krinstoff, whose situation shall be explained shortly, to abort a six-month-old fetus because to do so would violate its rights as a person.
1) A person has a right to life
2) Killing a person violates the right to life
3) Violating a person’s right to life is seriously immoral (except in extreme circumstances where to do so would prevent a greater violation of some person’s rights)
4) A non-person lacks all of Warren’s five conditions for personhood
5) Something can only be either be a person or non-person
6) A six-month-old fetus meets conditions 1 and 3
7) A six-month-old fetus isn’t a non-person and therefore must be a person
8) Aborting a six-month-old fetus would kill it
9) Wendy’s condition doesn’t constitute extreme circumstances
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore it is morally wrong for Wendy to abort the pregnancy.
It would be morally wrong for Wendy to abort her pregnancy because to do so would violate the moral right that all persons have to life. It is morally wrong to violate this right except perhaps in extreme circumstances, such as when the birth of a child virtually guarantees the death of the mother and perhaps the child, in such situations some person’s rights will be equally violated no mater what course of action is taken and therefore must be considered individually.
A person is any being that can meet at least one of Warren’s five conditions of personhood. These five conditions are: one, that it have a consciousness or awareness of things, especially the capacity to feel pain; two that it have the ability to solve new and relatively complex problems; three, that it be capable of self motivated activity, independent of external or genetic control; four, that it have to capacity to identify and communicate many possible topics; and five, that is show presence of self awareness or self concept.
Two months into a pregnancy a fetus is able to move its head in response to stimulus around the mouth, showing that it is able to feel and respond to stimulus such as pleasure and pain. In the sixth month of pregnancy a fetus is able to consciously control its motion. Once a fetus is six months old it meets Warren’s sixth condition, that it be capable of self-motivated activity independent of external control or genetic control, such as reflexive action. If it is capable of self-motivated activity and is able to sense and respond to external stimuli then it must have some awareness of things, satisfying Warren’s first condition. Given that something can only be a person or non-person and that a non-person must fail to meet all five of these conditions. A six-month-old fetus cannot be a non-person and therefore must be a person having the right to life. Aborting the fetus would result in its death, which would violate this moral right. Therefore it’s not morally permissible for Wendy to have an abortion at this point in time or after.
There are some facts of the situation that ought to be addressed. The first of which is the financial concern. The medical treatment leading up to the birth and possibly caring for Wendy afterward would be costly and only partially covered by medical insurance. Such a financial burden can some make things difficult, such as getting a mortgage for a house or continuing to live in your current circumstance, but it doesn’t have to detract from the quality of the life a person leads and therefore is morally irrelevant.
The chance of paralysis and that it increases over time, that the pregnancy was accidental, and that Bob and Wendy where considering an abortion previously were all omitted because at this point in time the fetus is a person and has the rights of a person regardless of risk or intent, rendering these factors morally irrelevant.
One weakness of this argument is in premise nine, that Wendy’s condition doesn’t constitute the extreme circumstances that would make this situation an exception to premise three, that violating a person’s right to life is seriously immoral. If Wendy carries the fetus to tree weeks within full term there is a 10% chance that she become paralyzed to the point that she will be unable to walk. This would hamper her ability to perform routine daily tasks and many activities that she enjoys; she would have trouble keeping a job or caring for an energetic child, and would probably become very depressed as a result of all this, all of which would decrease the values of her biographical life.
For the purposes of this argument an extreme circumstance is one in which all-possible courses of action violate some persons rights, in such a situation the morally permissible action, the one that is most likely to cause the lesser violation, is the one contrary to the argument’s conclusion.
There is no arguing that sever paralysis would decrease the value of Wendy’s biographical life, the question in this case though is whether or not the harm to her biographical life is a greater violation to her right to life than completely depriving the fetus of both its biological and biographical lives. Should Wendy be paralyzed her biographical life will still have some value, if less than before, She will still be able to experience and influence the world around her. Should she get an abortion, she will be ending the fetus’s biological and therefore biographical life. While her biographical life could loose some value the fetus’s life will lose all value completely; also, while aborting the pregnancy guarantees the violation of the fetus’ right to life, carrying it to within three weeks of the full-term only results in a 10% chance that Wendy will be harmed. Of the two courses of action, aborting the fetus is most likely to cause a violation and the one that would cause the greater violation and is therefore morally impermissible.
The conclusion is that the action that is morally impermissible is still the same as was previously concluded. It is morally impermissible for Wendy to have an abortion at this point in her pregnancy, despite her circumstance, because the fetus is now a person and an abortion would kill the fetus, committing a greater violation of the fetus’ right to life that the possible violation of Wendy’s right to life if she carries the child to within three weeks of full term.
feel free to rip it so shreds, theres a chance I'll have to write more stuff like this eventually so I might as well get it out of the way now
It's due in two hours but I'd appriciate some feedback anyway, so I'm sticking it in this post.
Wendy is six months pregnant when she and her husband learn that she’s developed a pregnancy complication called, “Clamber’s Syndrome.” Because of this condition Wendy must carry the fetus to within three weeks of full term in order for it to survive but she is at risk of developing permanent paralysis, to the point that she could loose the ability to walk, if the pregnancy continues, the risk of which increases as the pregnancy continues to about 10% by the time she reaches tree weeks from full term. If she doesn’t develop the paralysis then nothing bad will happen.
Bob wants her to get an abortion for a few reasons. Wendy could become extremely depressed if she were paralyzed, the pregnancy is the result of failed contraception which negates any responsibility they have toward the fetus, they wouldn’t be able to handle the cost of raising a child as well as the partially insured medical expenses from the pregnancy on their combined salaries.
This paper shall argue that it would be morally wrong for Wendy Thornson and Bob Krinstoff, whose situation shall be explained shortly, to abort a six-month-old fetus because to do so would violate its rights as a person.
1) A person has a right to life
2) Killing a person violates the right to life
3) Violating a person’s right to life is seriously immoral (except in extreme circumstances where to do so would prevent a greater violation of some person’s rights)
4) A non-person lacks all of Warren’s five conditions for personhood
5) Something can only be either be a person or non-person
6) A six-month-old fetus meets conditions 1 and 3
7) A six-month-old fetus isn’t a non-person and therefore must be a person
8) Aborting a six-month-old fetus would kill it
9) Wendy’s condition doesn’t constitute extreme circumstances
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore it is morally wrong for Wendy to abort the pregnancy.
It would be morally wrong for Wendy to abort her pregnancy because to do so would violate the moral right that all persons have to life. It is morally wrong to violate this right except perhaps in extreme circumstances, such as when the birth of a child virtually guarantees the death of the mother and perhaps the child, in such situations some person’s rights will be equally violated no mater what course of action is taken and therefore must be considered individually.
A person is any being that can meet at least one of Warren’s five conditions of personhood. These five conditions are: one, that it have a consciousness or awareness of things, especially the capacity to feel pain; two that it have the ability to solve new and relatively complex problems; three, that it be capable of self motivated activity, independent of external or genetic control; four, that it have to capacity to identify and communicate many possible topics; and five, that is show presence of self awareness or self concept.
Two months into a pregnancy a fetus is able to move its head in response to stimulus around the mouth, showing that it is able to feel and respond to stimulus such as pleasure and pain. In the sixth month of pregnancy a fetus is able to consciously control its motion. Once a fetus is six months old it meets Warren’s sixth condition, that it be capable of self-motivated activity independent of external control or genetic control, such as reflexive action. If it is capable of self-motivated activity and is able to sense and respond to external stimuli then it must have some awareness of things, satisfying Warren’s first condition. Given that something can only be a person or non-person and that a non-person must fail to meet all five of these conditions. A six-month-old fetus cannot be a non-person and therefore must be a person having the right to life. Aborting the fetus would result in its death, which would violate this moral right. Therefore it’s not morally permissible for Wendy to have an abortion at this point in time or after.
There are some facts of the situation that ought to be addressed. The first of which is the financial concern. The medical treatment leading up to the birth and possibly caring for Wendy afterward would be costly and only partially covered by medical insurance. Such a financial burden can some make things difficult, such as getting a mortgage for a house or continuing to live in your current circumstance, but it doesn’t have to detract from the quality of the life a person leads and therefore is morally irrelevant.
The chance of paralysis and that it increases over time, that the pregnancy was accidental, and that Bob and Wendy where considering an abortion previously were all omitted because at this point in time the fetus is a person and has the rights of a person regardless of risk or intent, rendering these factors morally irrelevant.
One weakness of this argument is in premise nine, that Wendy’s condition doesn’t constitute the extreme circumstances that would make this situation an exception to premise three, that violating a person’s right to life is seriously immoral. If Wendy carries the fetus to tree weeks within full term there is a 10% chance that she become paralyzed to the point that she will be unable to walk. This would hamper her ability to perform routine daily tasks and many activities that she enjoys; she would have trouble keeping a job or caring for an energetic child, and would probably become very depressed as a result of all this, all of which would decrease the values of her biographical life.
For the purposes of this argument an extreme circumstance is one in which all-possible courses of action violate some persons rights, in such a situation the morally permissible action, the one that is most likely to cause the lesser violation, is the one contrary to the argument’s conclusion.
There is no arguing that sever paralysis would decrease the value of Wendy’s biographical life, the question in this case though is whether or not the harm to her biographical life is a greater violation to her right to life than completely depriving the fetus of both its biological and biographical lives. Should Wendy be paralyzed her biographical life will still have some value, if less than before, She will still be able to experience and influence the world around her. Should she get an abortion, she will be ending the fetus’s biological and therefore biographical life. While her biographical life could loose some value the fetus’s life will lose all value completely; also, while aborting the pregnancy guarantees the violation of the fetus’ right to life, carrying it to within three weeks of the full-term only results in a 10% chance that Wendy will be harmed. Of the two courses of action, aborting the fetus is most likely to cause a violation and the one that would cause the greater violation and is therefore morally impermissible.
The conclusion is that the action that is morally impermissible is still the same as was previously concluded. It is morally impermissible for Wendy to have an abortion at this point in her pregnancy, despite her circumstance, because the fetus is now a person and an abortion would kill the fetus, committing a greater violation of the fetus’ right to life that the possible violation of Wendy’s right to life if she carries the child to within three weeks of full term.
feel free to rip it so shreds, theres a chance I'll have to write more stuff like this eventually so I might as well get it out of the way now