One of today’s most controversial topics, concerns whether a woman has the right to end late term pregnancies through abortion. Specifically, whether it is morally permissible for women to receive abortions in the third trimester. In this paper, we will discuss both sides of the argument for “pro” and “anti” groups on whether it is permissible to have a third trimester abortion. To elaborate on what the third trimester entail is, the third trimester is considered to between weeks 24-40. When women receive abortions in this trimester is it usually too late to use medicine to abort the fetus, so often women will have an intact dilation and extraction abortion (Munson & Ian, 2016, p. 457). There are three methods to this procedure. The first
…show more content…
Warren mainly emphasizes that “the rights of an actual person always outweighs those of a potential person” (Munson & Ian, 2016, p. 493). Just like the “anti” abortion views, Warren finds it always permissible to receive an abortion when due to rape. The woman carrying the child is an actual person who participates in the community around her, while the fetus has the potential to be a person just as the woman. But the fetus has yet to become this actual person. Warren would argue against Marquis view, that the value of the future for the woman carry the fetus is more important than the future of the fetus. So if a woman feels the need to get an abortion at any time because she feels as though the baby is infringing on her rights and livelihood, then she has a right based on that she is a person and the fetus in a potential …show more content…
If this woman was to not receive the abortion and was to raise the baby, she would probably feel pain/resentment towards this child. In exchange, the child could pick up on this resentment and also feel unhappy. So this action might actually not produce happiness. This would result in pain for the mother and child. However, if the woman was able to receive an abortion, there would be only one person’s emotional feelings to integrate into society instead of having two people. The result would be the woman’s happiness. The utilitarian theory finds it permissible for one person to suffer to create the greatest net pleasure, then receiving the abortion and terminating the fetus would be found morally
Warren mainly emphasizes that “the rights of an actual person always outweighs those of a potential person” (Munson & Ian, 2016, p. 493). Just like the “anti” abortion views, Warren finds it always permissible to receive an abortion when due to rape. The woman carrying the child is an actual person who participates in the community around her, while the fetus has the potential to be a person just as the woman. But the fetus has yet to become this actual person. Warren would argue against Marquis view, that the value of the future for the woman carry the fetus is more important than the future of the fetus. So if a woman feels the need to get an abortion at any time because she feels as though the baby is infringing on her rights and livelihood, then she has a right based on that she is a person and the fetus in a potential …show more content…
If this woman was to not receive the abortion and was to raise the baby, she would probably feel pain/resentment towards this child. In exchange, the child could pick up on this resentment and also feel unhappy. So this action might actually not produce happiness. This would result in pain for the mother and child. However, if the woman was able to receive an abortion, there would be only one person’s emotional feelings to integrate into society instead of having two people. The result would be the woman’s happiness. The utilitarian theory finds it permissible for one person to suffer to create the greatest net pleasure, then receiving the abortion and terminating the fetus would be found morally