Critical Analysis of Adam Gopnik “Arguing Abortion”
Gopnik`s article states that those opposed abortion have no moral basis for their arguments. The reason for this view on the issue is that outlawing of abortion is a violation of the fundamental rights and therefore morally impermissible.
The argument raised in the piece of writing is a deductive one. The premises provided are supposed to give 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 the conclusion will also be accurate. In this case, if it is true that making abortion illegal or restricting goes against the fundamental rights of women and it is a violation of their civil privileges, then the outlawing of abortion and its restriction is also not permissible morally.
Moral right for abortion
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 under protection irrespective of the circumstances, and 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 the article. The fact is that women have a fundamental right to make a decision on their life and future regardless of whether they have the support of religion or the medical practitioners. The argument is valid deductively because it is true that women have right to make a choice on the direction they want their lives to take. That right should not be taken away from them by anyone because they are the ones to live with the consequences.
Another supportive point conveyed in the piece is that a fetus is not a human being yet, and therefore, abortion cannot be compared to murder. This is because what exists is the potential to become a person and not an actual one. It therefore makes no sense to put the consideration of rights of the potential one and disregard the well-being of the real human being.
There is also a premise from the writer advocating for abortion on the basis that it is against morality to force people some of whom are liberal, to follow the beliefs of religions that are supported by just theory that has no scientific way of proving. There are propositions that abortion in itself promotes social peace since people are at liberty to determine what they want to do with their bodies especially women.
He also argues that since killing is allowed in some instances such as wars and capital punishment then it should be permissible in the case of an unborn fetus. Even if it is evil, some religions allow it. They should give the same consideration to abortion because it is true it saves lives too in some instances and therefore wrong morally to condemn the act in totality without considering the reasons behind it.
The sub-arguments given by the author also have a valid deductive argument. It is true that 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 the fundamental moral right to restrict them from doing something based on a conviction that they don`t share. Given that religion has religion in most cases has no scientific backing, and has a basis on only one`s socialization, then it is true that making decisions based on it on behalf of everyone is against their rights.
Anti abortion opinion
Since it is true that giving people a choice promotes social peace, and abortion is an option that is available for people to choose on, then it must also 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 difficult to determine when life starts for a person, then it is hard to determine if there is a contravention of the crucial right of the unborn. It is, therefore, intricate to establish the truth to which right supersedes the other.
Nevertheless, it is true that the well-being is of the woman is given 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 under protection first.
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 into consideration. It would be sound given all the arguments by Adam Gopnik, that I consider the chain of reasoning to be deductive. He clearly shows how the society is quick to condemn and make shallow judgments on the issue of abortion. It is clear the opposition has no other major reason behind it, other than religion. I, therefore, judge that the premises given by the author are right, and so the conclusion that abortion should be morally permissible must be correct.
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.