This paper offers a quick summary of the abortion debate and respected view points from famous philosophers addressing one of the largest debates in America, abortion. These arguments include each side of the topic, pro-life and pro-choice, or how they are referred to in the paper, the moral impermissibility and the moral permissibility of abortion. In addition to these philosophical arguments is an analysis of these viewpoints and common criticism that go along with each of them. Marry Anne Warren, Don Marquis, and professor at the University of Arizona, Michael McKenna’s arguments are addressed and expanded upon throughout this paper. The topic of abortion has drawn many Americans to take a stand on what they believe is right. Pro-life and pro-choice are terminology that allow the greater population to hover towards, without having to do much thinking of their own. These two terms are highly politically and morally charged as they are used in a vague sense to categorize both sides. Rather, I believe it is most effective to think of the two sides of this controversy as the moral impermissibility of abortion, and the moral permissibility of abortion (Timmons, 2017). Those who support the moral permissibility of abortion do not see it as something gleeful, rather it is an available measure, accessible to pregnant women, that can be seen as morally permissible. These terms allow for us to think more clearly and offer a dispassionate assessment of the issue that we can judge for ourselves. This essay could be plagiarized. Get your custom essay “Dirty Pretty Things” Acts of Desperation: The State of Being Desperate 126 writers ready to help you now Get Original Paper Without paying upfront So, what is at stake in this heated debate? Well, since this controversy deals with the moral impermissibility and the moral permissibility of the issue, the moral wrong of abortion is at stake. The moral wrong of abortion that is involved between the two sides is really about the moral wrongness of the action, when what is at stake, is whether or not a fetus has a right to life and by killing it, it could be deemed as murder (Timmons, 2017). One surface level argument that is commonly used by politicians, is that abortion is the killing of an innocent human being, thus it is morally wrong. Although this could be true, it is an example of a question-begging argument that commits a crucial fallacy. The fallacy of reasoning is used to draw a conclusion through poor means, in which the reasons that are offered are not reasons that should independently get a person to see that they have to rationally be committed to accept this conclusion. The criticism of this fallacy is that the reasons that are offered for this conclusion are reasons that in themselves, already presuppose the conclusion. One would not accept the reasons offered, unless one already accepted this conclusion. This argument fails at moving those who do not agree with this statement, to the side of moral impermissibility. The second surface level argument states that a woman has the right to do with her body what she chooses. A rights based conception of morality would agree that a woman can do with her body what she wants, but it is not an unlimited right. There are certain limits of this right that deal with harming one’s own body which may not apply to this debate. If it turns out that there is in fact another human inside a woman’s body, than it may suggests that there are limits to what a woman can do (Timmons, 2017). So what do philosophers on both sides of the controversy have to say? In this essay, I will delve into the moral permissibility and moral impermissibility viewpoints of famous philosophers regarding the contemporary topic of abortion.