Vincent Vazquez
Professor Schulz
Philosophy 01
17 December 2015
Morality and Legality of Abortion It is not uncommon for pregnant women to have an abortion at least once in their lives. However, there have been countless debates over whether the act of an abortion is morally right and when is abortion considered legal and illegal. Philosophers analyze whether abortion is moral and immoral while court cases and lawmakers debate whether it should be legal or illegal and under what circumstances. Jeremy Bentham’s Ideas about utilitarianism and the greatest pleasure for the greatest number of people and John Rawls’ fairness could be used to answer whether it is morally and legally permissible to have an abortion. Before we can debate about whether …show more content…
Rawls’ political theory is that the legality of something has to be based on what he called the “original position” (Schulz). He does this by setting up a “veil of ignorance” which sought to rid of any self gain of a person by stating that they have to choose whether a law is just and they don’t know where in that society they will end up forming a society where the laws are just and are not for the mere benefit of one group or person in that society (Schulz). Using the ideas of Rawls on how something can be looked at as being legal, it can be shown that abortion should be legally permissible as the equality of women as citizens would rule over the respect for due life. Abortions are legally permissible because the embryos are not humans. Since embryos are not human beings but objects inside of a woman that she owns since she carries it and it is attached to her, embryos should be considered the property of the women. We are free to do whatever we want to our property because we own our property. Rawls argues that a law must be able to be applied to all citizens equally without the gain of others. Therefore, the right to do whatever you want with your property is defended by Rawls in that no matter where in society you end up, a right of property is just because it gives you one of the basic liberties and the right of property can be applied to anyone in a society. If having an abortion would be illegal, then why would sexual pleasure not be illegal? The reproductive contents that are wasted for pleasure are not used for the sake of the creation creation of a human, but rather for the sake of pleasure. Don’t the sexual contents that are created during intercourse also have a potential to create a human? If so, why has it not become illegal to waste these contents for pleasure? Just because something has the potential to create a human doesn’t make it human.
Professor Schulz
Philosophy 01
17 December 2015
Morality and Legality of Abortion It is not uncommon for pregnant women to have an abortion at least once in their lives. However, there have been countless debates over whether the act of an abortion is morally right and when is abortion considered legal and illegal. Philosophers analyze whether abortion is moral and immoral while court cases and lawmakers debate whether it should be legal or illegal and under what circumstances. Jeremy Bentham’s Ideas about utilitarianism and the greatest pleasure for the greatest number of people and John Rawls’ fairness could be used to answer whether it is morally and legally permissible to have an abortion. Before we can debate about whether …show more content…
Rawls’ political theory is that the legality of something has to be based on what he called the “original position” (Schulz). He does this by setting up a “veil of ignorance” which sought to rid of any self gain of a person by stating that they have to choose whether a law is just and they don’t know where in that society they will end up forming a society where the laws are just and are not for the mere benefit of one group or person in that society (Schulz). Using the ideas of Rawls on how something can be looked at as being legal, it can be shown that abortion should be legally permissible as the equality of women as citizens would rule over the respect for due life. Abortions are legally permissible because the embryos are not humans. Since embryos are not human beings but objects inside of a woman that she owns since she carries it and it is attached to her, embryos should be considered the property of the women. We are free to do whatever we want to our property because we own our property. Rawls argues that a law must be able to be applied to all citizens equally without the gain of others. Therefore, the right to do whatever you want with your property is defended by Rawls in that no matter where in society you end up, a right of property is just because it gives you one of the basic liberties and the right of property can be applied to anyone in a society. If having an abortion would be illegal, then why would sexual pleasure not be illegal? The reproductive contents that are wasted for pleasure are not used for the sake of the creation creation of a human, but rather for the sake of pleasure. Don’t the sexual contents that are created during intercourse also have a potential to create a human? If so, why has it not become illegal to waste these contents for pleasure? Just because something has the potential to create a human doesn’t make it human.