User talk:DWD1961

The abortion argument is not purely rights based. The two seminal works on abortion, which cover both sides of the argument in that their objections must be answered, and answered validly, before we can create any valid argument against abortion. Currently, there are no such fact based - valid - arguments.

Judith Jarvis Thompson. A Defense of Abortion Michael Tooley. Abortion and Infanticide (In a personal email, Tooley explained he had updated the essay to include solution to some technical scientific problems or possible problems for which he had been advised. I do not know if he ever tried to republish that updated version, however.)

Tooley's main argument is the investigation into "personhood" because you cannot murder a nonperson. His conclusion is that fetuses et al are NOT people, thus there can be no moral objection, rights or any other, on the premise that abortion is murder.

Sure, you can lump it all together and say that Tooley's argument is really based on the rights of the fetus, but that is not his argument. Tooley's argument is descriptive in that it uses science to show that fetuses do not obtain person-hood, and ipso facto, cannot be murdered.

Thompson, on the other hand, in her essay, explains clearly that her argument is rights based, the rights of the mother, not the fetus. In fact, her arguments show that even if the fetus does have a right to life--the right not to be murdered--the rights of the mother are greater.

Conclusion, the main work of abortion is contained under two investigations: Rights of the mother (ethics) and what it is to be a person (scientific), that is, normative and descriptive. Thompson and Tooley have developed the arguments that simply must be overcome before the position that abortion is murder can obtain. DWD1961 (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)