IndexTopic:Philosophy:Counterarguments: the liberal vision of abortionCounterargument: the problem of "potential" lifeConclusion:BibliographyIn America, abortion is a topic of heated debate in the daily lives of many women. Protests against the use of abortion arose after the Roe v. Wade decision. Those who protested against it were called “pro-life” supporters. Although this is a sensitive topic, the debate extends to many areas of life. Whether it's on the news, in the newspapers, or in Congress itself, abortion is a relevant discussion that needs to be addressed. I believe that women everywhere should have free and unrestricted access to abortion, as long as the fetus is dependent on the mother for survival. However, there are many who will disagree with this. These arguments include that of a moderate and a conservative. These will be showcased 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 Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Topic: The right to control one's body is a well-respected entity in the laws and constitutional rights found in America. However, in the case of abortion, the right to choose over one's own body is violated by those who do not agree with the action. The means to remove the right to choose over one's own body would weaken women as people in the eyes of the law. If men could make unlimited choices about their person, women would be at a disadvantage compared to their gender counterparts. To prevent women from making a choice like aborting their fetuses, one could argue that we are going back in time. Controlling another's bodily decisions therefore reflects that of an era before women's rights, as women have been determined to be equal to men in the eyes of the law since the 19th Amendment. Everyone in America has the freedom to choose about themselves. This is especially true of the Supreme Court ruling, Roe v. Wade. In this case abortion was legalized everywhere in America. Therefore, allowing women to have the freedom to choose what to do with their bodies. This sanctioned the full and unequivocal freedom of women over themselves. However, this concept is starting to change. Those who try to prevent women from having abortions violate the fundamental right to control over one's own body. This is why I argue that abortions should be allowed as long as the child is dependent on the mother for survival. If the baby does not depend on the mother to develop, then 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 the necessary nutrients, then the fetus is separated from the mother's body. So, until the fetus reaches a state of vitality 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 functioning and developed at 39 weeks. Therefore, abortions should be allowed up to the viability point of 39 weeks. This is to avoid violating the right to choose that women have over their own bodies. Philosophy: My argument for abortion can be supported by many philosophers, including Kant. Kant's ethical theory is one of the most cited when understanding the morality of behavior and thoughts. According to the author of Doing Ethics, Lewis Vaughn, Kantian ethics is based on aspects of using reason and logic to determine whether actionsare morally right or not. It is with reason that Kant creates the concept of moral law derived from the categorical imperative. A categorical imperative can be described as “acting only according to that maxim by which one 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 performed universally for all human beings, it is not morally correct. This concept of a categorical imperative is in line with my view of abortion. Consistency should be a major reason why abortions should remain legal. If those who oppose abortion were based on protecting the life of the unborn child, this would be inconsistent and therefore immoral. If the law required a woman to carry her fetus, the life of the fetus would be protected, but not that of the mother. She would be forced to carry a child until birth, whether or not it affected her quality of life. Therefore, not allowing 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 pregnancy to term, demonstrating why abortions are morally determined. The second version of Kant's categorical imperative is the principle of the means to an end. Kant demonstrates that human beings are special due to their ability to think rational thoughts and have free will. Since this concept is unique to humans, the species is considered special compared to other animals. Since Kant considers human beings to be special, he advises that we should all treat each other with deserved respect. To do this we should avoid using people as “mere means” to get what they want. To be “merely” used as a means is to be manipulated for the benefit of others. Using people would be considered disrespectful to other human beings, making such an 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 is also in line with my views on abortion, as it protects the mother's ability to act autonomously on her own body. As abortion critics threaten to force mothers around the world to have a full-term baby, this would violate the mother's autonomy. A mother not being able to make decisions about her body would be called manipulation. By laws that prohibit mothers from having abortions, the government is manipulating the mother's free will. This is the case of Ohio's “Heartbeat Bill,” according to which mothers are prohibited from having abortions after the twentieth week of pregnancy. The article produced by the New York Times shows how the government manipulates the mother's free will. They do this by limiting when a mother can abort a fetus by producing stringent legislation. Here the government uses mothers who want to abort "only as a means". This can be concluded because, in an attempt to protect the conservative beliefs that govern state legislation, they manipulate a woman's freedom of choice over her own body. Therefore, showing how to force mothers to carry a baby full-term against their will would be considered immoral. If choosing to have an abortion is her choice, others should respect that choice, as she deserves it because she is a human being. Counterarguments: The Liberal View of Abortion As many would perceive my view on abortion asmoderate, there are many who can oppose it for different reasons. The liberal perspective is one of the major critics of the argument I have presented. Liberals, as defined by Lewis Vaughn, are those who believe that a fetus is a human being only after birth. The group believes that the fetus is a part of the mother's body. Concluding that mothers should be able to abort their fetuses up until birth. In the argument laid out in Lewis Vaughn's book Doing Ethics, liberals admit to the point that killing an innocent person is wrong. However, according to liberals, the fetus is not a person. Thus making abortion permitted at any time during pregnancy. The liberals' reasoning behind not recognizing fetuses as human beings is inspired by Mary Ann Warren. The criteria of what it means to be a person can be found in the philosopher's thesis, The 5 Necessary Conditions of Personality. This list would include requirements such as “having consciousness, the ability to reason, self-motivated activity, the ability to communicate, and the presence of self-concepts and self-awareness.” Since the fetus cannot do any of these things, liberals argue that they are not human. In this way, the mother can abort her fetus at any point during the pregnancy. This makes abortion permissible because if the fetus is not a person, it cannot be murder. While these are valid points, there are many holes in this liberal argument. The way they determine what a person is is inconsistent in many ways. Taking 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? Does society belittle their personality and allow others to kill it? No, they are still considered a human being. Accepting their thesis would mean that liberals support the idea that they can kill those who are severely mentally disabled, as if they cannot communicate, they are not people according to this criterion. 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 personality, just as a fetus's inability to speak should disable its personality. Therefore, claiming that this criterion is what truly determines personality would be hypocritical. If it is not okay to kill disabled people because of their inability to communicate, why should it be okay to kill a fetus at any point during pregnancy? The answer is that it wouldn't be. Instead, it would be more reasonable to determine the point in the pregnancy at which the fetus becomes human. As for my argument for feasibility, this would be at about 39 weeks. At this time in pregnancy, fetuses are fully developed and are just gaining weight, according to embryologist Judis Venuti. Since they are fully grown and have all the physical and chemical aspects of a person, this would make the fetus a person at this point. We then demonstrate why a point of pregnancy viability is a better way to determine in which case abortion is appropriate and when it can be classified as homicide. Counterargument: The Issue of “Potential” Life One argument that has gained popularity among those who oppose abortion is the issue of “potential” life. This topic is best summarized by Arizona State University philosophy professor Bertha A. Manninen, in her article “Philosophy, Ethics, and the Humanities in Medicine.” According to Manninen, she defends the idea that abortion is immoral because the fetus has the potential to be a human being. As a human being, thefetus should be respected and given the right and protection to live. Manninen defends his belief with the following argument; “power…the power which he [actually] possesses by virtue of his specific constitution” to grow into a being of a certain kind. That is, X is a potential Y if X possesses the power to become Y; that X will become Y if he lives long enough. Here, she says there is nothing to misunderstand. If a fetus is given the chance to live long enough, it will become a person. It is not so much a “potential” or a “possibility” but rather a fact of life. For example, if a caterpillar is allowed to grow long enough, it will become a butterfly. There is no possibility that the caterpillar is anything other than a butterfly. For this reason the fetus deserves the rights attributed to all people, as it is clearly a human being, but in a different form. Therefore, Manninen states that since fetuses are human beings, abortions should not be allowed at any time. If they are, it is possible to take the life of a human being. This therefore means that abortion would be classified as a type of homicide. Although the argument for the “potential life theory” is applicable, there are gaps that need to be addressed. One of the obvious problems is that Manninen's thesis is that she considers the fetus and adult adults to be deserving of equal rights. This is clearly problematic, as not even an infant has the same rights as an adult. This idea was demonstrated by philosopher Ronald Munson in his topic Intervention and Reflection: Fundamental Issues in Medical Ethics. According to Munson, it is wrong to say that because an entity has the “potential” to be something, this does not mean that it has equal rights to whatever it will be. Explain this concept further with the example of a child born in America. Technically, this child is a “potential” voter, but he or she is still not treated as a voter because you must be 18 to vote. Therefore, arguing that just because a fetus has the potential to be a human being does not give it rights as a human being. Clearly, fetuses are not the same as an adult person and, for this reason, should not be given “full and equal moral status (Vaughn 230).” This also applies to the case of sperm and egg. If one were to follow Manninen's thesis, sperm can "potentially" turn into a child, so it should be treated with the rights of a human being. The thought process would mean that contraception killing sperm would be murder. This is clearly an outlandish belief and highlights how unreasonable the theory of potential life can be when applied to real-world scenarios. Thus, excluding the defense that abortions should never be allowed in case they have the "potential" to be humane. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Conclusion: Overall, the choice of whether to have an abortion or not to have an abortion is not an easy one. According to the Washington Post, nearly half of pregnancies in America are unplanned. This leaves many women in difficult situations. Unplanned pregnancies force mothers to make difficult choices about the state of their fetus. Whether a woman chooses to keep the baby or not, it is important that she has the opportunity to decide what is right for her. This basic right to his body is something many want to take away from him. Having full autonomy in deciding your own body is a right granted to every human being. Getting pregnant with an unplanned baby shouldn't determine whether you still have that freedom of choice. When the..