Toggle navigation
Home
Ask A Question
Ask
Answer Questions
Answer
Users
Support/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, XXXXXX than debate XXXXXXXXXXXX XX a fetus is a real XXXXXX XX conception. For the XXXX of XXXXXXXX, XXX allows the XXXXX XX XXXXX XXX follows with her XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX analogy. Thomson encourages the reader XX imagine XXXX XXXXX to find XXXX XXXX been XXXXXXXXX XX a XXXX XX XXXXX lovers XXX XXXX XXXXXXX a XXXXXX violinist into them. They XXX XXXX that it XX for a period of XXXX XXXXXX XXX XX they unplug XXXXXXXXXX, the XXXXXXXXX XXXXX die. Thomson XXXX this XXXXXXX XX get her point XXXXXX XX pro-XXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX is always wrong. XXX XXXXX that XXXX XXX XXXXXX XXXXX cannot XX XXXXXXXXX since a XXXXXX, XXXXXXXXX a fetus, XX XXX XXXXX XXX right to XXX XXXXXXX else's body without her consent. An opposer can say XXXX it is XXXX moral XXXX to stay XXXXXXX XXXX XXX violinist XXX the nine months XXXXXXX he XXX a XXXXX to XXXX. XX response XX this, I think XXXXXX shares an excellent XXXXX XXXX XXX states, “What if the XXXXXXXX of the XXXXXXXX XXXX. "Tough XXXX. I agree. XXX now you've got XX XXXX in XXX, with the XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXX you, XXX XXX XXXX of XXXX life” (p. XXX). Does it seem feasible, or better yet, XXXXXXXXX that one XXXXX allow someone XXXX to XXXX XXXXXXX XXXX them for XXX remainder of XXXXX life because it XX the XXXXX thing to do? XXXXXXXX, everyone XXX a right to life…right? </p> <p>XX additional argument from XXX-life XXXXXXXXX claims that if a woman is XXXXXXX to XXXX XXXXXXXXXXX sex XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX, the XXXXX XX live XXXXXXX XX the fetus and not that of the XXXXXX as a consequence XX her XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX. In response, Thomson uses the XXXXXXX XX “XXXXXX-seeds” to share how XXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXX precautions, XXXXXXXXX occurs XXXX XXXXXXXXXX sex. XXX XXXXXX XX XXXXX to imagine that people-XXXXX fly all around and if they don't XXXX children XXXX XXXX use XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX that XXXX XXX XXXXXX-seeds out. XXXXXXX, in XXXX XXXXXXXXX, the XXXXXX-seeds find a XXX into their home and plant themselves in the XXXXXX and upholstery. Thomson XXXXX XXX questions, "Does XXX XXXXXX-XXXX who XXX develops have a XXXXX to the use XX XXXX XXXXX? (p. 195). XXX question XXXXXX seems XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX precautions XXXX made to keep the XXXXXX XXXXX out. XXXX XXXXXXXXX it with XXX consensual XXX, it XXX XX said that accident XXX happen and if precautions were taken, then the XXXXXX XXXXXX be expected XX be responsible for any unintentional XXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXX XXXXX. XX XXXX not give the fetus XXX XXXXX to use the mother’s body XXXXXXX it was XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XX be. XXXXXXXXXXXXXX are XXX XXXX-proof, XX a matter XX XXXX, the XXXX XXXXXXXXXX contraception XX XXXXX XXXXXXXXX, XX XXXXXXXXXX. </p> <p>Thomson raises the XXXXXXXX XX XXXXXXXXX due XX a XXXX, XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX is that the fetus has XXX right to live, XXXXXXX, they do XXX take XXXX consideration XXXX pregnancy XXX occur in XXXXX XXXXXXXXX besides consensual XXX, XXX instance, rape. Thomson states, "unborn XXXXXXX whose existence is XXX XX rape have no right to the XXX of their mother's bodies, and thus that XXXXXXXX XXXX XX XXX XXXXXXXXX them XX XXXXXXXX they XXXX a XXXXX XX XXX XXXXX is not XXXXXX XXXXXXX (p. 195). XXXX is clear XXXX, is XXXX XXX XXXXXX XXX XXX XXXX XXX XXXX XXX XXXX XX XXXXX to XXX her body, XXXXXXXXX, the XXXXX XXXXXX XXXX in return XXX the mother’s body, so aborting XXXXX XX considered within the mother’s rights. Thomson further elaborates XX this XX using the analogy of a XXXXXXX entering XXX’s home through a window XXXX was purposely opened. XXXX XXXXX XXX that XXX XXXXXXX XX free XX take what he wants XXXXXXX the window was opened XX XXX homeowner. XXXXXXXXX, XXXX few, if XXX would believe this XX XX XXXX. If it XXXX, we would have a XXX of happy burglars. XX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XX XXXX theory, XXXXXXX asks the reader XX imagine they are impregnated XXX rape, but XXX XXXX XXX to XXXXX XXX XXXXX XX use her body for a period of one XXXX. XXXX would XXX, as Thomson XXXXXX, "...that she XXXXX to allow it XX remain for XXXX hour - that it XXXXX XX indecent in her XX refuse" (p. 196). XXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXX say XXXX XXXXXXXX the fetus before the hour XXX up would be an XXXXXX killing, however, the fact would still XXXXXX XXXX XXX XXXXXX did XXX XXXX consent for XXX XXXXX XX use her body. </p> <p>I think Thomson XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX the argument that XXXXXXXX is XXXXXXXXXXXXX, even XX XXXXX so XXX XXXX XXX XXXX of the XXXXXX. In response XX XXX argument, XXXXXXX states, "XXXXXXX a woman XXX become pregnant, XXX now XXXXXX that she XXX a cardiac condition such that XXX will die if XXX carries the baby XX XXXX. XXXX may XX done XXX her? XXX fetus, being XX life, XXX XX XXX mother XX a person XXX, so XXX XXX a XXXXX XX XXXX” (p. 189). XX is clear in XXXX scenario XXXX XXXXX on the XXXXXXXXXX that everyone XXX a right XX life, XXXX the XXXXXX and XXX fetus XXXX XXX XXXXX to XXXX. Now the question becomes XXXX XXX mother XXXX a right XX XXXXXX herself and XXXXX XXX XXXXX. Absolutely. I XXXXX think that even the XXXX XXXXXXX XXX-XXXX advocates XXXXX accept XXXX XXXXXXXX XX XXXXXXX acceptable. However, XXXXX are some who would say XXX XXXXXXXX impermissible. XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX in XXX article, "We are XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXX abortion XXXXX XX directly killing the child, whereas XXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXX not XX XXXXXXX the mother, XXX XXXX letting her die. Moreover, in killing XXX XXXXX, XXX would XX XXXXXXX an XXXXXXXX person, for XXX child XXX committed XX XXXXX, and XX XXX XXXXXX XX his XXXXXX's death" (p. XXX). It is XXX XXXXXXX XXXXXX in the XXXXXXX, XXX I XXXXX XXXX XX XXXXX XXXX out of XXX XXXXXXXX XX the time frame for XXXXXXXX the XXXXXX XX "XXXX XXX". A XXXXX's survival XX XXXXXXXXX upon the XXXXXX to XXXXXXX the necessary variables to XXXXX XXX fetus to XXXXXX, XXXX XXX eventually XX XXXX. XX thoughts XXXX XX XXXX if the XXXXXX is early in her pregnancy, XXXXX it would XX impossible XXX a fetus to XXXXXXX outside of the XXXXXX, the XXXXX XXXXX die XX XXXX. XX XX XXXXXX XXXX XX it is or should the XXXXXX have XXX XXXXX to XXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXX in order XXXX she XXX live? XXX's suppose XXXX a mother XXX XXXXXXX has XXXXX young children, XXXXX XXXXXXX pregnant but XX told that she XXXX XXX before the fetus XXX XXXXX 8 weeks, XXXX it XXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXX XXX mother would XXXXXX to abort, XXX XXXX to save her own life but XX XXXXX her other children to XXXX their XXXXXX? Perhaps the XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXX on conceiving, XXXX XX XXXXXXX the devastating XXXX XXXX having it would kill her. XXXXXXXXX, it would not XX an XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXX it still XXXXX XXXX XX the defense XX XXX mother’s right to live, XXXX XX it means XXXXXXXXXXX a pregnancy XXX wanted. Thomson further XXXXXX, “If XXXXXXXX killing an XXXXXXXX XXXXXX XX XXXXXX, XXX thus XX impermissible, then the mother's XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX the innocent person XXXXXX her is murder, XXX thus XX XXXXXXXXXXXXX” (p. XXX). She XXXXXXXXX with XXXX premise XXXX XX a mother XXXXXXXX an XXXXXXXX XX her self in order XX save her life, then it XXX't XX XXXXXXXXXX murder. In XXXXXXXX, it XX XXX XXXXXXXX XXX XXX mother XX XXX and XXXX wait for death XX consume her. </p> <p>In XXXXXXXXXX, I want XX share Thomson’s XXXXXXXX as she begins to XXXXXXXX her argument XX stating, "XXXXX, while I do argue that abortion is XXX impermissible, I XX XXX XXXXX that it XX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX. There XXX XXXX XX XXXXX in which XXXXXXXX XXX XXXXX XX term requires only Minimally Decent XXXXXXXXXXXX XX XXX XXXXXX, XXX XXXX is a standard XX must XXX XXXX below" (p. 200). XXXXXXX the XXXXXX opposition, XXXXXXX is XXXXXXX stating XXXX she XXXXXXXXXXX XXX opposition's point XX XXXX XXX can XXXXX XX certain XXXXXX. Her XXXXXXXXX here XX simply stating that it XX the XXXXXX's right to XXXXX, though it XXX XXX XXXXXX be XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX. XX XXXXX XXXXXX XX the XXXXX is in XXXXX of Thomson's argument, XXXXXXXXXXXX in XXXXX of XXXX and XXXXX the mother's XXXX is in danger. I am pro-choice and fully XXXXXXX XXXX a XXXXX XX granted XXX XXXXX XX do XXXX her body as XXX XXXX fit. I have XXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXX say that a woman XXXXX XXXX XXXX XXX baby XX for XXXXXXXX, rather XXXX killing it. Who is to say, however, that XXXXXXXX is XXX better choice for the child? XXXX may be XXXXXXX by someone who XXX no XXXXXX to XX XXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXX but rather intends XX exploit XXX XXXXX. XXXXXXX XXXXXX with XXX final statement, "A XXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXX XX surely not XXX XXXXXXX XX a person, and so XX XXX dealt XXXX by anything I have XXXX XXXX" (p. 202). XXX topic of XXXXXXXX has become a XXXXXX of morals, XXXXXXX and XXX XXXXXXXXXXX between XXXXX XXX XXXXX. I XXXXXX, XXXXXXX, XXX XXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXX what these XXXXXXXXX XXXX. Some XXXXXXXXX based opposers XXXXX say XXXX God XX XXX one who XXX set XXXXX the XXXXXXXX of these words, XX XXXXXXXX XX this is that not all people believe in God, XXXX are more spiritually XXXXX with XXXXX own definitions of what is moral. Who is it that XXXXXXX which XXXXXXXXXX XX XXXXXXX? </p>">
Attachment #1 Preview
