What is the best societal stance on abortion?

I'm doing a research paper on how different philosophers have different beliefs on abortion. The question is what is the best stance on abortion. Here are some people I will be using for examples (if you think I should add people in the comments that would be great)<br>1. Judith Jarvis Thomson (In favor of abortion)<br>2. Don Marquis (In favor of pro-life)<br>3. Mary Anne Warren (In favor of abortion)<br>4. Rosalind Hursthouse (In favor of pro-life)<br>5. Peter Singer (In favor of abortion)<br><br>Now for the question: If we consider these five people's beliefs, what is the best stance on abortion?<br><br>For me, Judith Jarvis Thomson has best stance on abortion.<br><br>*Judith Jarvis Thomson (In favor of abortion)*<br><br>Judith Jarvis Thomson argues, in her essay “A Defense of Abortion”, that abortion is not always morally impermissible, even if the fetus has a right to life. According to her account, it is morally required for women to keep the baby if there is no threat to the mother's life and if the mother is able to afford to raise the child. In her violinist argument, she states that a woman who doesn't want to have the baby is similar to a person who is forced to be hooked up to a famous violinist who will die if they are disconnected from the violinist for the next nine months. She argues that it is the right of the mother to disconnect herself from the violinist. She then argues that IF the mother does decide to disconnect (have an abortion), that the mother may not kill the violinist. This then created the argument whether or not a fetus is a person at birth. According to her, it is not a person IF the fetus is not conscious of itself, which she claims it is not. So in the eyes of someone who believes that a fetus is a person, it is wrong to abort the baby. In the eyes of someone who believes it is not a person, it is not wrong to abort the baby. Although she claims it is not always morally permissible to abort, she generally falls under the pro-choice category.<br><br>*Don Marquis (In favor of pro-life)*<br><br>Don Marquis claims that abortion is morally equivalent to murder. He defines killing a person as the deprivation of a future of experiences and events, which according to Marquis, abortion does. According to Marquis, the abortion is depriving the fetus of a future of valuable experiences, which is wrong. Marquis argues that the future of experiences a fetus would experience far outweighs any burden we put on the mother, thus making abortion morally wrong. According to Marquis, the two criteria that must be met to make killing morally wrong are: <br><br>“Killing a being causes it to lose its future. In doing so, killing causes the greatest possible lost. It therefore makes killing a very serious wrong.”<br><br>and<br><br>“Up to a point, the more a being can value its future the more serious a wrong it is to kill it. This is because the more a being can value its future the more a being loses by being killed. Thus on this account, it is a far greater wrong to kill a normal adult human being than it is to kill a dog.”<br><br>According to Marquis, both criteria are met, so it is wrong to kill the fetus. Marquis then argues that abortion is morally equivalent to murder because abortion deprives a being of a valuable future. This is where Marquis gets his claim that abortion is morally equivalent to murder.<br><br>*Mary Anne Warren (In favor of abortion)*<br><br>Mary Anne Warren argues that abortion is morally permissible because a fetus is not a person. Warren defines a person as a being with a brain developed enough for consciousness and the capacity to feel things. She claims that a fetus does not meet the criteria, so it is not a person. She then argues that abortion is not wrong because it is not depriving someone of a valuable future. Her last argument is that a woman should be allowed to abort the fetus if the mother's well-being is at risk. If the fetus is threatening the life of the mother, then the fetus may be aborted. Warren claims that a fetus not being a person trumps any other arguments for a fetus being a person. Warren argues that anyone can be a person, so a fetus is not automatically a person. Warren argues that because a fetus is not a person, abortion is not always morally wrong.<br><br>*Rosalind Hursthouse (In favor of pro-life)*<br><br>Rosalind Hursthouse argues that abortion is prima facie (always initially) morally wrong. According to Hursthouse, a prima facie wrong act is the contrary to a moral virtue. Hursthouse argues that abortion violates two virtues: benevolence and self-love/nonmaleficence. Benevolence is doing good for others, self-love/nonmaleficence is avoiding harm to others. Hursthouse argues that abortion is contrary to both virtues because it deprives the fetus of life and kills the fetus. Hursthouse argues that it is always prima facie morally wrong to kill a being with a right to life, such as a fetus. Hursthouse is then not arguing that abortion is always wrong, she argues that abortion is always initially wrong.<br><br>*Peter Singer (In favor of abortion)*<br><br>Peter Singer is a utilitarian. He argues that the greatest good for the greatest amount of people is what is morally right. According to Singer, if having a baby would cause more unhappiness than it would happiness, then it would be morally right to abort the baby. Singer claims that if a fetus was aborted, then the happiness of the mother and the rest of the family would increase. This is because the mother would not have to deal with the burden of raising a child. Singer argues that in the long run, the abortion would cause more happiness than unhappiness. Singer then argues that abortion is morally right if it would cause more happiness than unhappiness.<br><br>For me, Judith Jarvis Thomson has best stance on abortion.<br><br>**TLDR: What is the best stance on abortion? For me, Judith Jarvis Thomson has most thought out stance. What do you think?**