You can use these premise as an example and take this and expand it or change it up a little bit either way is fine. It should be six pages!
Premise 1: Human beings constitutionally and morally have the right to life
Premise 2: A fetus is a human being since it is already conceived and is an individual.
Premise 3: The right to life supersedes the right of women to control their bodies.
Premises 4: It is not immoral under certain permissible circumstances, such as carrying an anencephalic fetus.
Conclusion: Except for permissible circumstances, abortion is immoral since it perverts the right to life and is unconstitutional.
Reconstructing Argument and Analysis
Analysis of the Argument
The argument above is valid because the premises are all true and are establishing support for the conclusion. The premises of the argument are all true, and the conclusion is true. Proof of the premises truthfulness is possible through the examination of all the four premises. In the first premise, human beings have a right to life, which is morally true and is a constitutional right. No one prefers death, not of own volition, and all constitutions worldwide have a clause defending the moral right to life. The second premise is true and has a logical connection with the third premise.
The second premise, it is medically proven that a fetus has life and therefore exists as an individual. Like any other individual, thus fetus ascribes to the right to life. It is wrong to assume that fetuses may not speak or have autonomy; therefore, they are not individuals. There is indisputable evidence of individuality by the presence of life in a being. Contrary to the argument against the right to life that individuals such as Judith Thompson make, the right to live in this case is not against ones wish but a consequence that deserves no denial. The analogy of attachment to a suffering violinist is invalid in justifying abortion.
The fourth premise is true since there are circumstances where the fetuss life is already in compromise and endangers that of the mother. If the fetus is anencephalic, it is immoral to compromise the pregnant womans life under the guise of the right to life. This premises truth is what proponents of abortion, such as Judith Thompson, apply to construct the suffering violinists analogy. Another permissible circumstance is if it was a rape case for the pregnant woman. The woman is not morally responsible for carrying the child, although the child is an individual. The premises truthfulness is not because the child is an individual and, therefore, assumes the right to life. It is the circumstantial that makes the third premise override the right to life. The permissibility of a circumstance is not because the pregnant woman wishes so, but rather a morally sound issue such as her a compromise of her health emerges.
The third premise is true since every individual has the right to life. It, therefore, is right for the fetus to live just as the pregnant woman carrying it. The fetuss right to life supersedes that of the pregnant woman despite having the right to control her body. Morally, every individual has the right to their bodies, but it is not to deny others rights. Claiming that the pregnant woman has the right to separate herself from the fetus is immoral since she is the cause of the fetuss individuality. The moral law of action-reaction denies such an argument. All four conclusions are strong since they are logical, truthful, and non-circular.
"Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by our team of experts, guaranteeing you A results."