Why Abortion is Immoral

that the fetus/zygote is a person from the moemnt of conception and that abortion is immoral since persons have a right to life.

some psychological criteria for personhood which the fetus cannot possess and thus abortion is not impermissible since the fetus is not a person and has no associated rights.

PC does consider the mentally handicapped or severally mentally ill. Too narrow.

AA wishes to protect all humans, too broad, cancer cells are also human.

Killing is wrong because it brutalizes the killer and that killing is wrong because of the effects that it has on the friends and family of the victim. For the former, brutalization derives from participating in an immoral act, so we need to investiage the source of that immorality. For the latter, there would be no wrongess in killing isolated hermits with neither friends nor family.

The effect the killings have on the victim. The loss of one's life is one of the greatest lossess one can suffer, because it deprives one of all the experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments that would otherwise have consituted one's future.

1) Killing is often thought to be one of the worst crimes and it deprives the victim of a future more than any other crime
2) Those dying of AIDS and cancer often are upset with their loss of ability to do things in the future. Death of the young is usually more sad than losing old.

1) his account can accomdate for the wrongess of killing non-humans so long as they are deprived of valuable futures
2) can account for the moral permissibilty of euthanasia.
3) Does not allow for infantice
4) Protection of all potential persons. However, in the sense of possesion, not humanity.

holds that killing is wrong because it frusterates the desire of the victim to continue living

It would not be immoral to kill those who do not possess a desire for contiued existance. For example, it would not be morally wrong to kill a depressed teenger or a sucidial adult. He argues, that the reason that anyone would desire to live is because they value their future. This just gives his account more evidence.

holds that killing is wrong because it discontinues the experiences of the victim.

It is the value of the experiences not the experiences themselves. The account maintains that killing is worng because it prevents the realization of valuable expeirences in the future. It also does not accomdoate the moral permissibilty of euthanasia.

An entity cannot possess a right to life unless it has a capacity to desire it's continued existence. Fetuses do not have the capacity to desire their continued existence, they do not have a right to life.

1) it relies upon psycho characteristics (victim and empathy)
2)The right to x requires the capacity to desire x and that a capacity to desire x requires a concept of x - seems riddled
ex) patient desires medicine, but doesn't know about it, so they cannot have it.

Requires there to be a victim and that sentience is necessary precondition for being a victim. Plants can be killed but that killing them is not wrong. They are not sentient and not victims.

The comatose, for example, are not sentient yet killing them is still wrong.

It deprives the victim of a valuable future. It can accomdate the moral permissiblity of euthanasia, moral impermissiblity of killing the depressed, and it can account for the moral impermissibitly of infanticide.

That abortion is prima facie impermissible.