An analysis over the morality of abortion and infanticide reveals the arguments to whether there are practical lines or supported research that give the fetus the same protection that we grant a living child. Throughout the paper, the arguments from the Conservative, Liberal, and Peter Singer’s ethical view will be present. To begin, a utilitarian is someone moralist, who believes that the value of a thing or subject depends on utility or usefulness to a higher pleasure. Singer’s view on human life is more utilitarian due to him being against human rights. Human rights definition is to give equality to all genders, races, religion, origin, or any other status. He finds himself in a controversy with the Conservatives and Liberals over
…show more content…
In 1993, Singer made a statement “that no newborn should be considered a person until 30 days after birth and that the attending physician should kill some disabled babies on the spot.” This shocked many pro-life spectators. Peter Singer presented more and more statements about human life, abortion, and infanticide explaining that euthanizing “non-humans” should not equate with killing a normal being. So being, the decision upon euthanizing a child before or after birth only if the child has a severe abnormality should always be up to the parents with advice from a physician. Singer is aware that a bond has grown between the child and parents even before birth, which is why he expresses it to be their choice on what happens for the future of their child. In his video “A Dangerous Mind” he objects with another doctors thought of terminating the life a 12 year old disabled boy because he thought the boy was suffering to live every day. This was false according to the family of the boy who had taken the responsibility to care for this child and love him from the day he was born. Singer’s thought about this scenario was if a life is valued, it is wanted. Overall, Peter …show more content…
After looking at the conservative, liberal, and Peter Singer’s views, I believe that it may have a few more outcomes that are positive on certain occasions, while still warranting plenty of downfalls to such a traumatic situation. If a family wants to love and cherish the presence of a life even if they are handicapped, let those children live and remain loved as long as possible. Maybe the mother of the fetus is suffering from health problems it may benefit her to have the abortion to save her and try again when she has returned to good health. In other cases such as rape, or even knowing they may be an unsuitable mother they should be able to terminate the pregnancy. The only part I would be opposed to is the women who are just careless themselves and get pregnant, get the abortion, then repeat the cycle. I disagree with Singer’s idea of when a human life begins. I believe that as soon as you hear the heartbeat of potential life. Everyone says that to be considered a human they need to be self-aware, be able to plan for what they could become, or have equality. I find that untrue because people who have passed on that have lived their life, is still thought of as humans even after their heart has stopped. A fetus has the properly functioning heartbeat making their body alive. People can still be alive even when they are brain dead and that is because of their heart. When an expecting couple hears
In 1993, Singer made a statement “that no newborn should be considered a person until 30 days after birth and that the attending physician should kill some disabled babies on the spot.” This shocked many pro-life spectators. Peter Singer presented more and more statements about human life, abortion, and infanticide explaining that euthanizing “non-humans” should not equate with killing a normal being. So being, the decision upon euthanizing a child before or after birth only if the child has a severe abnormality should always be up to the parents with advice from a physician. Singer is aware that a bond has grown between the child and parents even before birth, which is why he expresses it to be their choice on what happens for the future of their child. In his video “A Dangerous Mind” he objects with another doctors thought of terminating the life a 12 year old disabled boy because he thought the boy was suffering to live every day. This was false according to the family of the boy who had taken the responsibility to care for this child and love him from the day he was born. Singer’s thought about this scenario was if a life is valued, it is wanted. Overall, Peter …show more content…
After looking at the conservative, liberal, and Peter Singer’s views, I believe that it may have a few more outcomes that are positive on certain occasions, while still warranting plenty of downfalls to such a traumatic situation. If a family wants to love and cherish the presence of a life even if they are handicapped, let those children live and remain loved as long as possible. Maybe the mother of the fetus is suffering from health problems it may benefit her to have the abortion to save her and try again when she has returned to good health. In other cases such as rape, or even knowing they may be an unsuitable mother they should be able to terminate the pregnancy. The only part I would be opposed to is the women who are just careless themselves and get pregnant, get the abortion, then repeat the cycle. I disagree with Singer’s idea of when a human life begins. I believe that as soon as you hear the heartbeat of potential life. Everyone says that to be considered a human they need to be self-aware, be able to plan for what they could become, or have equality. I find that untrue because people who have passed on that have lived their life, is still thought of as humans even after their heart has stopped. A fetus has the properly functioning heartbeat making their body alive. People can still be alive even when they are brain dead and that is because of their heart. When an expecting couple hears