Hursthouse does not believe that having a right to abortion means one cannot be morally wrong for acting on that right because she holds the premise that a right action is an exact parallel of what the virtuous agent would do in the same situation. She cements the argument with the position that virtues should be at the center of every decision. Therefore, if a virtuous agent would not endorse abortion, then one is definitely on the wrong side of the moral divide for acting on their right to abortion. Yes, I do agree with her ideology because as people pursue their desires, they need to be sensitive to the influence of their actions upon other people.
2. What significance do “the familiar biological facts” (about pregnancy) have for the morality of abortion?
The familiar biological facts about pregnancy have far-reaching significance in the course of morality debates on abortion. Hursthouse cites such biological facts as sex, pregnancy, fetal development and eventual birth of the baby to cement the position that both male and female parents genuinely care about their offspring. Therefore, the choice to have an abortion is a serious matter as it amounts to cutting off of new life.
3. Does Hursthouse think that the reasons which make abortion right or wrong are the same reasons why other cases of killing are right or wrong? Explain. Do you think her argument shows Marquis argument to be flawed?
Hursthouse’s arguments lend credence to the fact that she thinks that abortion parallels killing of an adult human, and the same reasons that make abortion right or wrong apply for killing. For instance, she believes that it is wrong to kill anything that is human in the genetic sense. Her argument does not show make Marquis’ argument flawed because Marquis holds the same sentiments that the immoral aspect of killing lies on its impact on the victim, which is the loss of life.
4. In your own words, what does Hursthouse think about the relation between “having a right” and “doing the right thing?”
Hurthouse thinks that having a right is actually irrelevant and does not matter. What matters is, rather doing the right thing under whichever circumstance. That is what determines whether the action is virtuous or vicious on the moral scale.
5. Based on her virtue-oriented perspective, why does Hursthouse deny that having an abortion means failing to grasp what life should be about? By the same token, why does she deny that valuing children entails thinking that those who choose not to are selfish?
Hursthouse denies that having an abortion means failing to grasp what life should be about because, on the virtue-oriented perspective, she posits that even those without kids are in a happy position with other worthwhile things to do. Those who choose not to have children are, therefore, not selfish but rather they have just chosen to pursue other worthwhile things.
6. Why does Hursthouse suggest that even when an abortion is the best course of action, there is still a sense in which having it is wrong?
Hursthouse strongly asserts that just having the moral right to do something does not guarantee the right to perform it. In light of abortion, the fetus is a person and has rights too, and at the same time, the mother’s right to control her own body must not override the fetus’ right.
7. Why would it be wrong to assert that for Hursthouse, abortion is exclusively or even primarily a matter of women’s rights?
It would be wrong to make an assertion that Hursthouse views abortion in light of the women’s rights alone because she strongly condemns the idea of the woman’s right to control her own body overriding the fetus’ right to life.
Kevingao
14AbortionHursthouse.docx
0
