Her Property Mary Anne Warren Analysis

Mary Anne Warren rejects the claim, that the mother’s body is her property and that therefore she may expel any intruder from it, when she gives an example that ownership of property does not justify anyone killing innocent beings found on her property. Even more, the owner of the property is actually found responsible for those whom are found hurt on her property. Warren goes even further and states that “it is probably inappropriate to describe a woman’s body as her property since it seems natural to hold that a person is something distinct from her property, but not from her body” (Warren, 248). In other words, Warren rejects the claim that a mother’s body is her property by using an example of breaking a body part. For instance, when a

woman breaks her wrist, it is peculiar to exclaim that she broke her property, so instead she would exclaim that she injured herself. Therefore, it is herself that she injured and not her ‘property’, therefore, it is misguided to defend the right to an abortion through using the claim that it a woman’s body is her property.

Additionally, the argument that since it is the mother’s body, she can expel any intruder from it, is an absolute contradiction since it can be argued that a woman who intentionally chose to have intercourse with a man should have known the repercussion; therefore, consenting to have intercourse is, indeed, categorized as allowing the ‘intruder’ to enter. The ‘intruder’, in this case, can mean many things such as the sperm, the man, and the baby. All of which, the woman consented to. However, if the case falls under rape, then the woman may label the fetus, man, or sperm, an intruder, then abortion would be justifiable. Moreover, the principle, Warren offers to justify abortion is that the fetus is not a human person, but, instead a physical being. Thus, according to Warren, since what is qualified to be murder must involve an actual being, terminating an unwanted pregnancy does not constitute as

murder. Warren additionally states that “a fetus may have a right to life and abortion still be morally permissible, in that the right of a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy might override that right of the fetus to be kept alive” (Warren, 249).

In other words, a woman does not need justification for having an abortion because she is under no obligation to have a child she does not want. Hence, Warren states that in order to justify abortion, certain circumstances must be brought into light, in order to determine a mother’s amount of responsibility and obligation to the fetus. Such that the extent of a woman’s obligation is high, if she becomes pregnant due to carelessness, contraceptive failure, or original intent of pregnancy; however, the woman’s intention is low if she was raped or if the child poses a threat to the mother’s health. Furthermore, I do not entirely agree with Warren because she states that a fetus is not a living being and that it is not a member of the community. I believe that fetuses are living beings since they develop a heart and a central nervous system within the 3rd week of conception. Therefore, something with a heart is considered a human being. Furthermore, fetuses are a part of the moral community since those who are in the community with full moral rights originated from being a

fetus. Therefore, since those who are in the moral community are considered human beings then fetuses are human beings because we were once all fetuses. Even though, some may argue that my argument is faulty since that would mean a man’s sperm and a woman’s egg would be considered beings since we originate from the sperm and egg. However, that statement is false because it is the combination of both that result in a fetus. Without the egg, a man’s sperm is merely a substance not a being; thus, the same applies to a woman’s egg, without the sperm, the egg would be merely human cells. Ergo, the egg and sperm, when viewed as separates, cannot be defined as a human being. Moreover, I do agree with Warren on aspects such as her statement that particular circumstances need to be reevaluated to determine the degree to a woman’s moral obligation to having the fetus. I believe that it depends on the situation to whether a woman should receive an abortion because if a woman was raped, then that would mean the woman did not consent to the intercourse and therefore is not at fault. However, if a woman went into intercourse, knowing that insemination is possible, then the woman and man is definitely at fault. Hence, there are many aspects to Warren’s arguments that I find compelling, however the majority of her arguments are questionable especially those on morality and obligations.

Warren rejects the pro-life identification of the concept of a human being with the concept of a person. She does so by addressing the traits that would, necessarily, showcase the concept of personhood. The first trait Warren mentions is consciousness, meaning that the being should be able to feel emotions such as pain, in addition, the being should be able to experience events internally and externally. The second trait she mentions is reasoning, meaning the being should be able to use a sense of logic to solve new and difficult problems, as well as be able to articulate said problems. The third trait is the self-motivated activity, meaning that motivation to doing an activity should come from the desire for external awards. The fourth trait is the being’s ability to communicate, such that the being should be able to articulate what their feelings and their opinions. The fifth trait is the “presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness, either individual or racial, or both” (Warren, 255). However, Warren suggests that only the first three traits is needed to establish someone as a human being. She goes even further and states that if someone does not satisfy all five traits, then they are not considered a person. Hence, she states that the fetus is not considered a person since it does not possess any of the five traits. Therefore, since the fetus is not a person, it is not considered murder due to the fact that murder is defined as one person killing the other person. In addition, Warren defines a human being in two ways, the moral community and the genetic community. In regards to the moral community, Warren states that “the moral community consists of all and only people, rather than all and only human being and probably the best way of demonstrating its self-evidence is by considering the concept of personhood” (Warren, 254). In other words, the moral community emphasizes on moral rights of the ‘human’. Whereas, in regards to the genetic community, Warren states that “any member of the species is a human being, and no member of any other species could be” (Warren, 254). In other words, the genetic community has more emphasis on the physical body than on the inner person. This is in relations to abortion because Warren states that some human beings cannot be considered people. She uses the five traits to demonstrate her reasoning. According to Warren, “a man or woman whose consciousness has been permanently obliterated but who remains alive is a human being which is no longer a person…a fetus is a human being which is not yet a person, and which therefore cannot coherently be said to have full moral rights” (Warren, 256). In other words, according to Warren, people with mental illnesses and life threatening diseases are also not considered people since they do not have the ability to solve issues, articulate their thoughts, and feel anything similar to a vegetable. Even though, Warren states that everyone is a part of the genetic community, those who do not possess the traits stated are no considered members of the moral community. Furthermore, in regards to the right to abortion, Warren states that though fetuses are a physical being, they do not have traits that determine personhood. Ergo, Warren justifies abortion since the fetus is not a person, in her eyes, and cannot feel pain. However, I entirely disagree with Warren on every aspect of her argument. To start off, I believe that everyone is a person and once personhood is established, it cannot be taken away, especially something that makes up the identity of a person. Next, I would like to point out that fetuses do, indeed, feel pain if killed. The evidence to this is as follows, according the Maureen Condic an Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy and an Associate professor at the University of Utah School of Medicine, stated that when the fetus is at eight weeks the “most primitive response to pain, the spinal reflex” (“Do Fetuses”) is detected by the unborn fetus. Additionally, according to a Professor of Pediatrics and Neurobiology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, “if the fetus is beyond 20 weeks of gestation, I would assume that there will be pain caused to the fetus. And I believe it will be severe and excruciating pain” (“The First Ache”). Lastly, according to an ex-abortion doctor who became pro-life, Dr. Bernard N. Nathanson stated that when he places an ultrasound on the stomach, he sees “the child’s mouth open in a silent scream… this is the silent scream of a child threatened imminently with extinction” (“B.N Nathanson”).