Compare and Contrast Finnis and Tooley
Abortion is defined as an operation or other intervention to end a pregnancy by removing an embryo or fetus from the womb. Abortion has been and will always be a controversial issue, whether it is today or further along our journey in life. In the following paper I will compare and contrast the views of Finnis and Tooley on the view whether it is morally permissible for abortion, As well as talk on the basic principles which they use to argue their case and finally my take on who I find is more persuasive and why. We must see first where we stand and how we view the fetus in terms of being a human being and whether it is ethical to abort a fetus.
The public has struggled to determine whether it is ethical to abort a fetus; morally permissible or morally impermissible. Because of the differentiating opinions associated with abortion it has made this a particularly controversial topic. There are some people that believe that abortion is in no way shape or form morally impermissible and without a doubt acceptable. On the other hand others see fit that abortion under certain circumstances is justifiable. Many philosophers have attempted to provide their beliefs on what it takes, in this instance abortion, to be acceptable or unacceptable. The philosophical views of Finnis and Tooley are incomplete opposition where they stand regarding abortion. Tooley expresses that he “considers
the characteristics which are required for a ‘right to life’ concluding that the unborn and some infants don’t posses these characteristics and thus abortion is morally permissible.” (Bioethics Notes before birth). On the other hand Finnis states that “if unborn are human persons then the principles of justice and non-maleficence prohibit every abortion” and so is morally impermissible. (Bioethics Notes before birth). Meaning that anything that has been “attempted to harm an innocent human violates non-maleficience and justice.” (Bioethics...