Critical Analysis of Adam Gopnik`s Article on Arguing Abortion
Print Essay 
Link to article: http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/arguing-abortion The summary of the argument in the article is that the arguments against abortion have to moral basis. The reason for this view on the issue is that outlawing of abortion is a violation of the fundamental rights of the women. Therefore, abortion should be morally permissible since it protects the basic rights involved.
The argument raised in the piece of writing is a deductive one. The premises provided are supposed to provide support to the conclusion to validate the point of view in the item. If the reasons given to sustain the summary of the editorial are true then conclusion will also be spot on. In this case, if it is true that making abortion illegal or restricting goes against the fundamental rights of women and the violation of civil privileges is morally impermissible, then the outlawing of abortion and its restriction is also not permissible in terms of morals.
To determine if there is truth in the moral standing of the issue first we need to determine if the reasons are correct. First, a moral right that is fundamental is one that ought to be protected irrespective of the circumstances. In addition, there can be no valid justification for its violation whatsoever. Therefore, if one violates such a right then it automatically becomes morally wrong. The precision of the argument on whether abortion is morally right also comes out well in article. The fact that women have a fundamental right to make a decision n their life and their future regardless of whether has the support of religion or the medical practitioners. Another supportive point conveyed in the piece is that a fetus does is not a human being yet and therefore it cannot be compared to murder. The argument is valid deductively because if it is true that women have right to make a choice on the direction they want their lives to take and the procuring an abortion is not wrong and is incomparable to murder since life has not began in terms of law. Then it must be correct to say that the criminalizing the termination of pregnancy is against of the fundamental rights the female gender.
There are several sub-arguments that have been put across to show the moral standpoint of this divisive issue. The premise for the writer advocating for abortion is based it is against morality to force people who are liberal to follow the beliefs of religions that are supported by just theory. It is also argued that abortion in itself promotes social peace since people are at liberty to determine what they want to do with their bodies especially women. The fact that a zygote has DNA does not mean that it is a real person according to the writer. Therefore, the right to life is not curtailed by abortion since what exist in the womb are just the potential person and not a real one. He also argues that since killing is allowed in some instances such as wars and in capital punishment then why should it not be permissible in the case of an unborn fetus. The writer also alludes to the perception that a zygote cannot make the same moral claims as an entire human being.
The sub-arguments given by the writer also have a valid deductive argument. It is true that t of the opponents of the issue of abortion have some religious conviction behind it. Since people have different beliefs in religion and some are not believers at all, it is against fundamental moral right to restrict them from doing something based on a belief that they don`t share. Given that religion has religion in most Cases has no scientific backing and has a basis on only what one is socialized to, then it is true that making decisions based on it on behalf of everyone is against their rights. If it is proper that having a choice promotes social peace and abortion is an option that is available for people to choose on, then it must also be would be against morality to deny people the opportunity for them to decide on what they want to do with their lives and determine their future. The argument that the zygote does not have the same rights as a mature human being is however divisive. Since it is not factual to determine when life starts for a person, then it is difficult to determine if there is a contravention of the basic right of the unborn. It is therefore intricate to determine the truth to which right supersedes the other.
Nevertheless, it is true that the well-being is of the woman is given a priority in the case where it is a life threatening pregnancy and so it must be proper that the right to life of the mature is fundamentally right to be protected first. Even if killing is evil, it is allowed in some instances such as during wars and when punishing capital offences even by some religions. The same consideration should be taken because it is true it saves lives too in some instances and therefore wrong morally to condemn the act in total without considering the reasons behind it.
In general, I find the rights theory and Kantian ethics giving a more compelling than consequentialism and therefore I am more inclined to accept the premises to be true. However, I am troubled in the one that questions when life starts for a person and whether their right should be in to consideration. It would be sound given all the arguments by Adam Gopnik, that I consider the chain of reasoning to be deductive. I therefore judge that the premises in the thoughts are true and so is the conclusion must also be correct.
References
Driver, J. (2014). Ethics: the fundamentals (1st ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Remnick, D., Wayne, T., Edmonds, J., Charlton, L., Pilon, M., & Cassidy, J. et al. (2014). Arguing Abortion. The New Yorker. Retrieved 19 March 2017, from http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/arguing-abortion
Shafer-Landau, R. (2013). Ethical theory (1st ed.). Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
Stewart, D., Blocker, H., & Petrik, J. (2013). Fundamentals of philosophy (1st ed.). Boston: Pearson.
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the SuperbGrade website, please click below to request its removal: