Home

Essay Option 3a: 
For purposes of this essay option, revisit our Discussion Forum for Week Eight (March 17—23), and
consider all the points made therein. Write a formal essay paper answering both the general and specific
questions presented in the Discussion Forum, showing that you have researched the required reading
assignments for that Discussion Forum, namely [1] “A Defense of Abortion,” by Judith Jarvis Thomson (1971),
[2] “In Defense of Abortion and Infanticide,” by Michael Tooley (1972), an Adobe Reader copy of which was
provided in my opening post to the Discussion Forum and [3] “Why Abortion Is Immoral,” by Don Marquis
(1991). The general question you must address for this Essay Option is “Can an unborn child’s “right to life”
ever outweigh the pregnant woman’s “procreative liberty” in consulting with a licensed doctor whom she
might afford to pay to perform an abortion — prior to the ability of the fetus to survive on its own, with
intensive hospital care, outside of the pregnant woman’s womb—and if so, then under what circumstances?”
The specific question is “Is it unethical for a state government, such as Arkansas and Missouri today, to restrict
access to abortion in cases where the doctor knows that the pregnant patient believes that the unborn child has
Down syndrome in cases of Down syndrome, since such abortion discriminates against these disabled unborn
children?” In other words, if you were a lawmaker in a state such as Arkansas and Missouri today, both of
which states criminalize abortions in cases where the doctor knows that the pregnant patient believes that the
unborn child has Down syndrome, would you vote to repeal that law? In May, 2021, led by the state of
Missouri, no less than twenty-two states filed a joint “Amici Curiae” (“Friends of the Court”) brief with the
U.S. Supreme Court, supporting and defending the Arkansas ban on Down syndrome abortions. The state of
Missouri, joined by twenty-one other states, argued that the Arkansas ban on Down syndrome abortions was
justified by at least eight compelling state interests. First, the law advanced the State’s interest in protecting an
entire class of persons from being targeted for elimination solely because of disability. Second, it advanced the
State’s interest in eradicating historical animus and bias against persons with Down syndrome. Third, it
safeguarded the integrity of the medical profession by preventing doctors from abandoning their traditional
role as healers to become the killers of disabled populations. Fourth, it drew a clear boundary against
additional eugenic practices targeted at disabled persons and others. Fifth, it served to counter the stigma that
eugenic abortion currently imposes on living persons with Down syndrome and other disabilities. Sixth, it
ensured that the existing Down syndrome community would not become starved of resources for research and
care for individuals with Down syndrome. Seventh, it protected against the devaluation of all human life
inherent in any decision to target a person for elimination based on an immutable characteristic. Eighth, it
fostered the diversity of society and protects society from the incalculable loss that would occur if people with
Down syndrome were eliminated. On August 1, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court filed judgment on an order
which vacated the Eighth Circuit ruling in Little Rock Family Planning Services v. Rutledge, No. 19-2690 (8th
Cir.), annulling the ruling and remanding the case “for further consideration in light of Dobbs v. Jackson
Women’s Health Organization, 597 U. S. 215 (2022),” effectively reversing the Eight Circuit’s order against the
enforcement of the Arkansas ban. The Supreme Court order dated June 30, 2022 also removed the Eighth
Circuit’s block against the enforcement of two other Arkansas statutes enacted in 2019 relating to abortions,
namely, § 20-16-2004, which banned providers from performing an abortion when the “probable age” of the
fetus is “determined to be greater than eighteen weeks’ gestation,” with exceptions for a “medical emergency”
or a pregnancy that results from rape or incest, and § 20-16-606, which provided that a provider who violates
these statutes commits a Class D felony and is subject to suspension or revocation of his or her medical license.
Again, the general question you must address for this Essay Option is “Can an unborn child’s “right to life”
ever outweigh the pregnant woman’s “procreative liberty” in consulting with a licensed doctor whom she
might afford to pay to perform an abortion — prior to the ability of the fetus to survive on its own, with
intensive hospital care, outside of the pregnant woman’s womb—and if so, then under what circumstances?”
The specific question is “Is it unethical for a state government, such as Arkansas and Missouri today, to restrict
access to abortion in cases where the doctor knows that the pregnant patient believes that the unborn child has
Down syndrome in cases of Down syndrome, since such abortion discriminates against these disabled unborn
children?” In other words, if you were a lawmaker in a state such as Arkansas and Missouri today, both of
which states criminalize abortions in cases where the doctor knows that the pregnant patient believes that the
unborn child has Down syndrome, would you vote to repeal that law? For purposes of this Essay Option 3A,
you can augment or intensify your individual research, elaborate or to embellish your points, and
demonstrate, in formal essay paper style, the reasoning and argumentation that led you to certain conclusions
that you may have posted in our Discussion Forum for Week Eight.