Toggle navigation
Ask Questions
Ask
Answer Questions
Answer
Users
FAQ
Login
Register
Preview 50% of the Answer Below
Due to formatting, images, tables, or paragraphs may be out of place or not shown. Rest assured that they will be included and formatted correctly in your purchased answer.
Details
Question Title:
Essay
Go Back to the Question
Answer Preview
1</sup> What she is proposing is that despite agreeing for the sake of argument, a fetus is not a person at conception, just like an acorn is not an oak tree. She immediately states that she has no desire to debate specifically on whether a fetus or person or not by claiming, “How precisely, are we supposed to get from there to the conclusion that abortion is morally impermissible?" (p. 188). Her desire here is to broaden the topic, rather than XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX if a fetus XX a real XXXXXX XX conception. XXX the sake of argument, XXX XXXXXX XXX claim XX XXXXX XXX XXXXXXX XXXX her XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX analogy. Thomson XXXXXXXXXX the XXXXXX XX imagine XXXX awake to find they have XXXX kidnapped by a gang XX XXXXX lovers who have XXXXXXX a famous violinist into XXXX. XXXX XXX told XXXX it XX XXX a period XX XXXX months XXX if XXXX XXXXXX themselves, the XXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXX. XXXXXXX XXXX XXXX analogy to get her point XXXXXX XX XXX-XXXXXX who theorize that abortion is always XXXXX. XXX claim XXXX XXXX are always wrong cannot be XXXXXXXXX since a XXXXXX, including a XXXXX, is XXX XXXXX the XXXXX XX XXX someone else's body without her XXXXXXX. XX opposer XXX say that it is your moral XXXX to XXXX plugged into XXX XXXXXXXXX for the nine months XXXXXXX he has a right XX live. In XXXXXXXX XX this, I think Thomas shares an excellent XXXXX when she states, “XXXX if the XXXXXXXX XX the hospital says. "Tough luck. I XXXXX. but now you've XXX to stay in XXX, with the violinist XXXXXXX XXXX you, XXX XXX rest XX your life” (p. 189). Does it seem XXXXXXXX, or XXXXXX XXX, XXXXXXXXX XXXX one would XXXXX XXXXXXX XXXX XX stay plugged XXXX XXXX for the remainder of XXXXX XXXX XXXXXXX it is XXX moral thing to do? Afterall, everyone has a XXXXX to XXXX…right? </p> <p>An additional XXXXXXXX XXXX XXX-XXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXX if a woman XX XXXXXXX to XXXX XXXXXXXXXXX sex XXX inadvertently conceives, the right to live belongs XX the fetus and XXX that of the XXXXXX as a consequence XX her careless XXXXXXX. In XXXXXXXX, XXXXXXX uses the XXXXXXX of “XXXXXX-XXXXX” to XXXXX how sometimes, despite XXXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXX occurs from XXXXXXXXXX sex. XXX reader XX asked to imagine that XXXXXX-XXXXX XXX all around and if XXXX don't want XXXXXXXX they must use XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXX keep XXX XXXXXX-seeds out. However, in rare XXXXXXXXX, the XXXXXX-seeds find a way into their XXXX and plant themselves in the carpet and XXXXXXXXXX. XXXXXXX XXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXX, "XXXX XXX people-seed XXX now develops have a right to the XXX of XXXX house? (p. 195). XXX question almost XXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX obviously XXXXXXXXXXX XXXX made XX keep XXX XXXXXX seeds out. XXXX XXXXXXXXX it XXXX the consensual sex, it can be XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX can XXXXXX and XX XXXXXXXXXXX were taken, then the mother cannot XX expected to XX XXXXXXXXXXX for any unintentional pregnancies that XXX occur. It XXXX not XXXX XXX XXXXX the XXXXX XX use the XXXXXX’s body XXXXXXX it XXX not intentionally allowed to XX. XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXX full-XXXXX, as a XXXXXX XX fact, XXX only XXXXXXXXXX contraception XX avoid pregnancy, XX XXXXXXXXXX. </p> <p>Thomson raises the question XX pregnancy XXX XX a XXXX, XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XX XXXX XXX XXXXX has XXX XXXXX XX live, however, XXXX XX not XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX that XXXXXXXXX XXX occur in other XXXXXXXXX besides consensual XXX, for XXXXXXXX, XXXX. Thomson states, "XXXXXX persons whose XXXXXXXXX is due to XXXX XXXX no right to the use of their XXXXXX's XXXXXX, and XXXX XXXX aborting XXXX is not depriving XXXX of anything XXXX XXXX a XXXXX XX and XXXXX XX not unjust killing (p. 195). What is XXXXX here, is XXXX the XXXXXX XXX not give XXX baby any XXXX XX XXXXX XX use her body, XXXXXXXXX, XXX fetus XXXXXX then in XXXXXX XXX the mother’s body, so XXXXXXXX XXXXX be XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX the mother’s XXXXXX. XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XX XXXX by using XXX analogy of a XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXX’s home through a XXXXXX that was XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX. XXXX XXXXX say XXXX XXX XXXXXXX is XXXX XX take what he XXXXX XXXXXXX XXX window XXX opened by XXX XXXXXXXXX. Obviously, very few, XX any XXXXX XXXXXXX this XX XX XXXX. XX it XXXX, XX would XXXX a XXX of XXXXX XXXXXXXX. XX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX of XXXX XXXXXX, XXXXXXX XXXX XXX XXXXXX to imagine they are XXXXXXXXXXX via XXXX, but she XXXX XXX to allow XXX fetus to use her body for a XXXXXX of one XXXX. XXXX XXXXX say, as XXXXXXX XXXXXX, "...XXXX XXX ought XX allow it XX remain for XXXX hour - that it would be XXXXXXXX in her XX XXXXXX" (p. XXX). The opposition XXXX would XXX XXXX aborting the fetus XXXXXX XXX hour XXX XX would be an XXXXXX killing, however, XXX XXXX XXXXX still remain that XXX mother XXX not XXXX consent for the XXXXX XX XXX her body. </p> <p>I think Thomson XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXX that abortion XX XXXXXXXXXXXXX, XXXX if XXXXX so XXX save XXX life XX XXX mother. XX response to the argument, XXXXXXX XXXXXX, "XXXXXXX a woman has become pregnant, XXX now learns that she XXX a XXXXXXX condition XXXX that XXX XXXX XXX XX she XXXXXXX the baby XX term. XXXX may XX done XXX her? The fetus, XXXXX XX XXXX, but as the mother XX a person too, so has XXX a XXXXX XX life” (p. XXX). XX XX clear in XXXX scenario XXXX XXXXX on the assumption XXXX XXXXXXXX has a XXXXX XX XXXX, XXXX the XXXXXX and XXX fetus have XXX right XX life. XXX the XXXXXXXX becomes XXXX the XXXXXX XXXX a XXXXX XX XXXXXX herself and abort XXX XXXXX. Absolutely. I would think that even XXX XXXX XXXXXXX pro-XXXX advocates would XXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XX morally acceptable. XXXXXXX, there are XXXX XXX XXXXX say XXX XXXXXXXX impermissible. Thomson explains in XXX article, "XX are XXXX XXXX performing the abortion would XX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXX XXXXX, whereas XXXXX XXXXXXX would XXX XX killing the mother, XXX XXXX letting her XXX. XXXXXXXX, in killing XXX XXXXX, one XXXXX XX killing an XXXXXXXX XXXXXX, XXX XXX XXXXX XXX committed XX XXXXX, and XX XXX XXXXXX at XXX mother's death" (p. 190). XX XX not XXXXXXX stated in XXX XXXXXXX, but I XXXXX XXXX is being XXXX out of XXX equation XX XXX XXXX XXXXX XXX XXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXX to "just XXX". A fetus's survival is XXXXXXXXX XXXX XXX XXXXXX to XXXXXXX XXX necessary variables to allow XXX fetus XX XXXXXX, XXXX and XXXXXXXXXX be XXXX. My thoughts XXXX is XXXX XX XXX XXXXXX XX early in her XXXXXXXXX, where it XXXXX be impossible for a XXXXX XX survive outside of XXX mother, XXX fetus would XXX XX XXXX. Do we XXXXXX XXXX as it XX or XXXXXX the XXXXXX XXXX XXX XXXXX XX sacrifice XXX XXXXX in order that she can XXXX? Let's suppose that a XXXXXX XXX XXXXXXX XXX three XXXXX children, XXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXX is told XXXX she will die before XXX fetus can reach X weeks, does it seem XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX that the mother XXXXX XXXXXX XX XXXXX, XXX only to XXXX her own XXXX XXX to allow her XXXXX children to XXXX XXXXX XXXXXX? Perhaps the mother XXXXX intended XX conceiving, XXXX to XXXXXXX the XXXXXXXXXXX XXXX that having it would XXXX her. Obviously, it XXXXX XXX be an XXXX decision, but it still XXXXX XXXX XX the defense of the XXXXXX’s right XX XXXX, even if it XXXXX terminating a pregnancy XXX wanted. Thomson XXXXXXX states, “If XXXXXXXX killing an innocent XXXXXX XX XXXXXX, and thus XX XXXXXXXXXXXXX, XXXX XXX XXXXXX's XXXXXXXX killing the XXXXXXXX XXXXXX inside her XX XXXXXX, and XXXX XX XXXXXXXXXXXXX” (p. XXX). XXX XXXXXXXXX with this XXXXXXX XXXX XX a mother XXXXXXXX an abortion XX her self in order to XXXX her XXXX, then it can't XX XXXXXXXXXX murder. In addition, it XX XXX XXXXXXXX for the mother XX XXX XXX XXXX wait for XXXXX to consume her. </p> <p>In conclusion, I want to XXXXX XXXXXXX’s thoughts as she begins to XXXXXXXX her argument by stating, "First, XXXXX I do XXXXX that abortion XX XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX, I XX not XXXXX that it is always permissible. XXXXX XXX well be cases in which XXXXXXXX XXX child XX term requires XXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX of XXX XXXXXX, XXX XXXX is a standard XX must not XXXX below" (p. 200). Despite XXX strong opposition, XXXXXXX XX XXXXXXX stating XXXX she XXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXX's XXXXX of XXXX XXX can XXXXX XX certain levels. XXX statement here XX simply stating that it XX the XXXXXX's right XX XXXXX, though it XXX not always be considered XXXXXXX XXXXXXX. My XXXXX stance XX the topic is in favor of Thomson's XXXXXXXX, particularly in XXXXX of XXXX and XXXXX XXX XXXXXX's XXXX XX in danger. I XX pro-choice XXX XXXXX believe that a woman XX XXXXXXX the right to do XXXX her body as she XXXX XXX. I have heard XXX opposition XXX that a woman could just XXXX XXX baby up XXX XXXXXXXX, rather than XXXXXXX it. XXX XX XX say, XXXXXXX, that adoption is XXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXX the XXXXX? They XXX XX adopted XX someone who XXX XX XXXXXX XX XX loving and nurturing but rather intends to exploit XXX XXXXX. Thomson XXXXXX with XXX final XXXXXXXXX, "A XXXX early XXXXXXXX is XXXXXX XXX XXX killing of a person, and so XX XXX XXXXX with by XXXXXXXX I XXXX said here" (p. XXX). The XXXXX XX XXXXXXXX has XXXXXX a debate XX XXXXXX, XXXXXXX and the XXXXXXXXXXX between right XXX XXXXX. I wonder, however, who exactly has XXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXX variables mean. XXXX Christian based XXXXXXXX would say that God is XXX XXX XXX has set forth the XXXXXXXX XX these XXXXX, XX argument to XXXX XX XXXX not all people XXXXXXX in God, some are XXXX spiritually based XXXX XXXXX own definitions XX XXXX XX moral. Who is it that XXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XX XXXXXXX? </p>">
Attachment #1 Preview
