Abortion is something that has troubled our world for thousands of years. Most opposing arguments rely on the idea that a fetus is a person from conception and that we must treasure that. What makes this fetus a person? It does not really look, function, or act like a person, so can we really consider it a person? I have a hard time considering something so different from a person to be an actual person. I do not believe that the status of the fetus is all that relevant because it is quite hard to determine when a fetus becomes a person and so on. In this essay, I will argue that abortion is permissible when there is sufficient reasoning to perform one. Why is it that some people believe a fetus is a person from conception? It does not look …show more content…
This case would be like the case of the mother who wasn’t financially or emotionally ready. The future burden of this child on the mother’s life constitutes an abortion. Most antiabortionists can agree in some respect that in the case of a rape, a mother can abort the fetus. But if “all persons have a right to life, but that some have less of a right to life than others…that those who came into existence because of rape” must have less (Thomson 71). This sounds quite malice. Who decides what life is more or less important if these fetuses truly are persons? Philosopher Mary Anne Warren states that there are five traits that constitute personhood. These five concepts include consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, the capacity to communicate, and the presence of self-concepts and self-awareness. A fetus that doesn’t even have a developed braid or body cannot fit into these categories. Warren also states that if 1 through 5 are correct, then genetic humanity is not necessary in establishing that something is a person. She believes that some humans are not persons and that non-humans can be considered persons. I do not agree that nonpersons can be humans, but I understand where she is coming
In her essay, “A Defense of Abortion,” Judith Jarvis Thompson outlines the most common arguments that people defend, and explains her views regarding each of these. She shares numerous examples and situations that she believes will support her views. One of her most prominent arguments is that of whether or not a fetus has moral standing as a “person.” She highlights the so called “battle” between an innocent life, the fetus, and the bodily rights of the mother. Within this argument, Judith outlines for us several situations which can provide people with a different outlook regarding abortion. Throughout Judith’s essay, she does not truly give a clear stance, but rather allows her readers to choose for themselves.
The criterion for personhood is widely accepted to consist of consciousness (ability to feel pain), reasoning, self-motivation, communication and self-awareness. When Mary Anne Warren states her ideas on this topic she says that it is not imperative that a person meet all of these requirements, the first two would be sufficient. We can be led to believe then that not all human beings will be considered persons. When we apply this criterion to the human beings around us, it’s obvious that most of us are part of the moral community. Although when this criterion is applied to fetuses, they are merely genetic human beings. Fetuses, because they are genetically human, are not included in the moral community and therefore it is not necessary to treat them as if they have moral rights. (Disputed Moral Issues, p.187). This idea is true because being in the moral community goes hand in hand w...
In Thomson’s article, “A Defense of Abortion,” Thomson argues that abortion is not impermis-sible because she agrees with the fact that fetus has already become a human person well before birth, from the moment of conception (Thomson, 268 & 269). Besides that, she also claims that every person has a right to live, does so a fetus, because a fetus is a person who has a right to live.
Mary Anne Warren’s “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion” describes her justification that abortion is not a fundamentally wrong action for a mother to undertake. By forming a distinction between being genetically human and being a fully developed “person” and member of the “moral community” that encompasses humanity, Warren argues that it must be proven that fetuses are human beings in the morally relevant sense in order for their termination to be considered morally wrong. Warren’s rationale of defining moral personhood as showcasing a combination of five qualities such as “consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, capacity of communication, and self-awareness” forms the basis of her argument that a fetus displays none of these elements that would justify its classification as a person and member of the morally relevant community (Timmons 386).
Mary Anne Warren contends that abortion is morally permissible on the grounds that a fetus is not a person. In her eyes, although, fetuses are genetically distinct humans they are not people because they do not have the necessary characteristics for personhood: sentience, reasoning, emotionality, the capacity to communicate, self-awareness, and moral agency. For her, the lack of these characteristics do not necessarily allude that a fetus is not a person only that it belittles the confidence that they are a person- or in other words creates doubt of their personhood. In this essay, I shall argue when it comes to emotionality Warren sets the bar too high and indoingso runs the risk of wrongly overlooking different types of emotionality, which
In A Defense of Abortion (Cahn and Markie), Judith Thomson presents an argument that abortion can be morally permissible even if the fetus is considered to be a person. Her primary reason for presenting an argument of this nature is that the abortion argument at the time had effectively come to a standstill. The typical anti-abortion argument was based on the idea that a fetus is a person and since killing a person is wrong, abortion is wrong. The pro-abortion adopts the opposite view: namely, that a fetus is not a person and is thus not entitled to the rights of people and so killing it couldn’t possibly be wrong.
But, there are many differences between an actual person and a fetus. First of all, a fetus is completely dependent on the mother. Fetus’s need their mothers in order to be fed correctly, to live in a stable environment, and to grow and expand among many other things. Because the fetus cannot survive on its own, then it does not qualify as a human being. In addition, a fetus that is still inside the womb is only a potential person. The fetus resides inside of the mother, and thus is part of the mother herself until it is born. Another difference between a fetus and a person is that a person can feel pain. Anti abortionist commonly argue that abortion is wrong because it would cause pain to the fetus. But, according to Mark Rosen, an obstetrical anesthesiologist at the University of California at San Francisco, “the wiring at the point where you feel pain, such as the skin, doesn’t reach the emotional part where you feel pain, in the brain.” Furthermore, the thalamus does not form until week 28 of the pregnancy. So, no information, including pain, can reach the cortex in the brain for processing. These facts prove that a fetus would not be affected by the mother’s choice of having an abortion, thus proving Marquis and all other anti-abortionists wrong.
Thou shalt not kill; one-tenth of what may arguably be the most famous guidelines of morality in the western culture, and also the main driving force for pro-life advocates. The argument supporting their beliefs typically starts with the premises that a fetus is a person, and to destroy or to kill a person is unethical. Therefore abortion, the premeditated destruction of a human being, is murder, and consequently unethical. I deny the fact that the fetus, what I will refer to as an embryo up to 22 weeks old, has the right to live. The opposing argument is invalid because a fetus, although perhaps a part of human species, is not formally a person. This leaves it simply to be a part of the woman?s body, whose fate lies solely in the hands of the pregnant woman alone, no different from a tumor she might have. By proving this, the abortion debate then becomes an issue of women?s rights, something that is most controversial indeed. Furthermore, it is fair to question the credibility of many people against abortion because of obvious contradictions in the logic of their belief systems. The fact that this debate is relevant in modern society is ludicrous since there is a simple and plausible solution to this problem that could potentially end the debate for good, leaving both sides satisfied.
The standard argument against abortion claims that the fetus is a person and therefore has a right to life. Thomson shows why this standard argument against abortion is a somewhat inadequate account of the morality of abortion.
“On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion” by Mary Anne Warren is an in depth analysis of what, in Warren’s opinion, is exactly what defines a person and human being, the moral community, fetal development and the right to life, potential personhood and the right to life, and infanticide. Warren believes that emotion and morality should be entirely separate, and that abortion should be legal for all women, as denial would strip women of basic human rights, the rights that a woman holds over an unborn fetus. I personally agree with her arguments on these topics as I agree that women should be allowed to have abortions on their own terms, without subjection of authority or society telling her what she can and cannot do, as well as I agree for the most part on her view of what a person is, potential personhood not outweighing the choice of abortion, and her reasoning on what defines a person in the moral community. Warren insists that the “moral” sense of human and “genetic” sense of human must be kept separate in this observation. As she defines the two, she goes on to say that the confusion of the two “results in a slide of meaning, which serves to conceal the fallaciousness of the traditional argument that since (1) it is wrong to kill innocent human beings, and (2) fetuses are innocent human beings, then (3) it is wrong to kill fetuses.
This essay examines and critiques Judith Jarvis Thomson’s, A Defense of Abortion (1971). Thomson sets out to show that the foetus does not have a right to the mother’s body and that it would not be unjust to perform an abortion when the mother’s life is not threatened. For the sake of the argument, Thomson adopts the conservative view that the foetus is a person from the moment of conception. The conservative argument asserts that every person has a right to life. The foetus has a right to life.
Abortion has been the topic of controversy for many decades. Many people believe that when a woman terminates a pregnancy, she is committing murder and others argue that a woman has the right to choose life or abortion. There are different procedures to choose when having an abortion, depending on the gestational age and the woman 's health a pill form abortion may be used up to 9 weeks gestation (mifepristone and misoprostol), but for women who are over 12-weeks gestation (late-term abortion), surgical abortion is used (Berer 25). In 1973, the supreme court ruled that abortion was to be legalized, Roe vs. Wade. Women were given the legal right to choose to terminate their pregnancies and make the correct arrangements for their decisions. Different states have different restrictions to accessing abortion procedures, making the woman 's choice to terminate pregnancy less accessible. Restricting a woman 's access to appropriate abortion clinics limits her right to choose.
How would you feel if someone decided that you should never get a chance at life? That
Abortion Taking out the trash, or taking a human life? That is what most the argument is with abortion, some believe that abortion is okay because the fetus is not yet a person, and that the fetus will be nothing but trouble. On the other side people believe that even all the way down to the zygote (when sperm meets the egg and earliest stage of pregnancy) there is a human growing in you. A growing boy or girl, with their own little fingers, and toes, their own cute as can be toothless smile, and their functioning organs. To them one day that zygote will turn into someone great, a person just like you and I that needs love just as you and I, a person that deserves to not get taken from our world before it even has a chance to take its first breath.
Abortion in the United States is a legal form of murder. Each and every year over a million babies are murdered and it must be stopped now before it will continue to get out of hand each and every day. We have discussed in this essay that a fetus is a living humans and not something that can just be thrown away. An unborn child is still a child and he or she needs an opportunity to grow and live a long successful life just like the rest of us have gotten the privilege to do. Abortion cannot go on any longer. More and more live are lost every day.