Hi, need to submit a 1000 words paper on the topic Is Abortion Morally Impermissible.

Hi, need to submit a 1000 words paper on the topic Is Abortion Morally Impermissible. But such morals are often person-specific. Though these moralists claim themselves to be universal they frequently become vulnerable to the refutation and counter-arguments of their opponents. Indeed these moralists, whether they are abortionists or antiabortionists, cannot come out of the periphery of their context-specific righteousness and cannot view the unified whole truth of abortion. Therefore, the debate between the two groups continues endlessly. Since either party fails to shake off the context-specificity of abortion, the groups on either side of abortion makes them vulnerable to each other’s critiques (Marquis 183-187). Personhood, right to life, and ethics are several recurring keywords in both the pro and contra abortion debate. Often these themes serve as the grand principles of the attempts to validate the arguments of either party on the issue of abortion. But unfortunately, these themes themselves have been contaminated by the context-specificity. In an article, “A Defense of Abortion”, referring to the permissibility of general abortion Jarvis Thompson argues that since an unexpected conception of a baby in its mother’s womb due to a rape or other cases is in direct conflict with its mother’s right to choose, the mother’s choice to abortion may proved to be mean and selfish according to the existing morals of a society, but she has the right to abort the baby. Indeed Thompson’s approach is to establish a person’s or a woman’s right to abortion from a pure ethical point of view. His success lies in drawing a clear dichotomy between morals and ethics on the issue of the abortion. According to him, a mother’s right to choose to deprive her unborn baby from its right to life through abortion should be based on ethics, whereas her choice to allow the baby to live in her womb is a question of her and her society’s morality. Thompson’s propounded ethics asserts that if one’s right to choice does not come into direct conflict with another’s right to life, he or she cannot be held responsible for the violation of another’s right to life. In this regard, he puts forth the example of the man whose kidneys have been plugged in with the artery vessels of the dying violinist and also the example of the raped mother who is bearing the unwanted child of the rapist. In both cases, both the mother’s and the man’s choice to abort the unborn baby and to unplug the violinist are the matters of their rights to choose. In such cases they cannot be held responsible with the charge of murder. Indeed though such ethical approach the issue of abortion seems to be rational, it appears to be a stringent one in the context of social welfare, order and harmony. Often the debates on the morality of abortion include the debates on the personhood of a fetus. A school of scholars including Thompson are reluctant to assign it any right to life, since they believe that fetuses are not endowed with sufficient features of personhood. The debates on the morality of abortion often pivot on a fetus’s personhood which is generally determined by a fetus’s alikeness with a human being. Since a society’s morals can be applied to all who can be classified as the society’s members, it is necessary for the antiabortionists to prove a fetus’s social membership, that is, its personhood in order to win the society’s moral support for a fetus’s right to life.