Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Euthanasia ethical debate
Ethical dilemmas with abortion
Abortions essays pros and cons
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In the essay, “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion” Mary Anne Warren provides an argument for the permissibility of abortions at any stage of a woman’s pregnancy. In the argument, Warren firstly states that the potential to become a human is not the same as being a human, and therefore is not deserving of the same rights. Warren then asserts that to be a human, a person must possess the following characteristics or traits: consciousness, self motivated activity, reasoning, awareness of oneself, and the ability to communicate.1 Furthermore, Warren then states that since fetuses, at their very early stages, do not possess these traits, they are not human.1 She then continues on to deduce, that if being similar to a person grounds a right …show more content…
to life, then a fetus, at no point of development, is enough like a human to have rights, and thus concludes that fetuses do not have rights.1 Warren then proceeds to express the idea that even if a fetus had a right to life in virtue of being a potential person, this right is not strong enough to outweigh the rights of a fully-fledged person. She asserts that if this is found to be true, then at any stage of development, if the fetus has a right to life, then that right is not strong enough to outweigh the rights of the fully-fledged person who is carrying the fetus, in this case, the mother.2 Warren’s last conclusion then is that getting an abortion at any stage of pregnancy is permissible, and if it is indeed permissible then “all laws that restrict the right to obtain an abortion are wholly unjustified and violate a woman’s most basic moral and constitutional right.”2 In a sub-section of the essay Warren also discusses certain people she does not believe to be humans besides fetuses. The people in question are men and women who have had their consciousness removed in some sort of way, like a serial killer or the like, as well as defective human beings.1 Section 2: Although in the main argument that Warren presents the correctness is highly plausible, many criticisms can be found for it as well.
If one considers Warren’s idea of potential persons to be correct then in terms of being a person, being like a person, or being a potential person, newborn infants are not significantly different than a fully developed fetus.2 If one then agrees with Warren’s argument and conclusion stating that abortions are, for the most part, morally permissible, then one can conclude that it is morally permissible to kill a fully developed fetus. If then newborn infants and fully developed fetuses are not that different, then it must also be morally permissible to kill a newborn infant. Though most people would consider this to be a terrible thing to do, it is a reasonable deduction that stems from Warren’s argument.
Another criticism that can be found for Warren’s argument emerges from that fact that she does not specify two things in her argument. Firstly, Warren does not tell us how far in development from conception a fetus has to being before it begins to have enough of a virtue of personhood to be of value in the world. Next, Warren does not tell the readers how many or to what extent the rights a fetus’ potential for personhood stretch in the moral
…show more content…
realm. One more criticism that can be found for Warren’s argument is found where she states that defective people and people without consciousness are not considered human.1 If this is true then these people are equal with the fetus, but this is not true. Even if these being were not human they differ from fetuses. They previously had the same capacity as a human but due to circumstance, they are unable to use those precedent capabilities. This is tragic, yes, but does show that the beings are different from fetuses. Section 3: Warren disagrees with the previously stated argument and conclusion pertaining to a fetus and newborn infant and gives two reasons as to why.
She believes that infanticide is wrong. Even if the parents of the said child do not want the child for some reason; other people do want the child and could be deprived of a great amount of happiness if the newborn infant was to be killed.2 Next, Warren says that a lot of people value the lives of newborn infants and as long as there are people who value the infants then it is wrong to kill those infants as the person would be taking away potential happiness from those people, potential parents, if the infant were killed.2 By saying this Warren gives a reason for infants not to be killed, but she still does not disprove what she previously insinuated by saying that killing fetuses was morally
permissible. Warren would also attempts to answer the two questions stated in section 2 in a way by saying that human value develops continuously, sort of like the more and more one becomes like a person, the more and more valuable that person becomes.1 She thinks that human rights develop in the same fashion. I do not think this is correct. There is no real reason to believe there is a correlation between these two things. I agree with the fact that she says that personhood is not determined by genetically inherited traits, but instead of telling us, the readers how to actually determine personhood, Warren simply gives us another list of traits or characteristics that seem similar to the ones she previously denied that should tell sort of show us what that personhood should look like. The only difference is that one list of attributes is genetically defined while the other is not. Defining something or an idea by attributes seems, morally irrelevant, as attributes do not seem to exactly relate to morality. If one sees this to be true, then Warren’s entire argument seems to break apart and have nothing to stand for as everything it is based on fails to exist.
Thomson starts off her paper by explaining the general premises that a fetus is a person at conception and all persons have the right to life. One of the main premises that Thomson focuses on is the idea that a fetus’ right to life is greater than the mother’s use of her body. Although she believes these premises are arguable, she allows the premises to further her explanation of why abortion could be morally permissible. People would find it more understanding and more willing to help someone who is a relative.
Warren’s primary argument for abortion’s permissibility is structured around her stance that fetuses are not persons. This argument relies heavily upon her six criteria for personhood: A being’s sentience, emotionality, reason, capacity for communication, self-awareness, and having moral agencies (Warren 171-172). While this list seems sound in considering an average, healthy adult’s personhood, it neither accounts for nor addresses the personhood of infants, mentally ill individuals, or the developmentally challenged. Sentience is one’s ability to consciously feel and perceive things around them. While it is true that all animals and humans born can feel and perceive things within their environment, consider a coma patient, an individual suspended in unconsciousness and unable to move their own body for indeterminate amounts of time.
Thirdly, Marquis concludes from the last two premises and says that if you kill a fetus then it is prima facie seriously morally wrong of you. By killing off a human being’s potential values, it is cruel, especially to children because they are defenseless. Then, Marquis asserts that if fetuses and adults are in the same moral categories then the fetus can only be aborted if there is a serious moral concern. In the beginning, Marquis proclaims that there are special cases like rape and the mom’s life being threatened that would override the “moral wrongness” of abortion.
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.
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).
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.
To conclude, Marquis’s argument that abortion is wrong is incorrect. Thomson gives many examples of why Marquis is wrong, including that the mother’s right to her body
In order for the pro-life argument to be valid, it must have both a true premise and true conclusion. It falls short of validity by assuming that a fetus up to 22 weeks old is a person, and has its own rights independent of its host, or what we often refer to as its mother. First we must recognize the subtle, yet extremely important distinction between a human being and a person. It is obvious that a fetus is a member of the human ...
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.
Even though many argue a fetus is not yet a person, Marquis does not think it makes a difference at what stage a person is in life, that fetus will eventually be a person who will eventually live a life and to take that away before it even starts would be unethical.... ... middle of paper ... ... This idea, he argues, does not withstand the argument of suicide because it challenges his theory of having the desire to live.
middle of paper ... ... She argues that fetuses are not persons or members of the moral community because they don’t fulfill the five qualities of personhood she has fashioned. Warren’s arguments are valid, mostly sound, and cover just about all aspects of the overall topic. Although she was inconsistent on the topic of infanticide, her overall writing was well done and consistent.
”[23]Furthermore, they turned to the required qualifications of being defined as a “person.” Clearly, this can refuse personhood to someone unable to commit a crime, for instance, a child who has not yet arrived at the door of reason. Fr. Clifford Stevens recognizes this denial as a threat to the dignity of the human person and draws from the words of President Lincoln’s rebuttal of Dred Scott to point out that the purposes for abortion are very similar to the motives behind slavery.
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.
Many arguments in the abortion debate assume that the morality of abortion depends upon the moral status of the foetus. While I regard the moral status of the foetus as important, it is not the central issue that determines the moral justifiability of abortion. The foetus may be awarded a level of moral status, nevertheless, such status does not result in the prescription of a set moral judgement. As with many morally significant issues, there are competing interests and a variety of possible outcomes that need to be considered when making a moral judgement on abortion. While we need to determine the moral status of the foetus in order to establish the type of entity we are dealing with, it does not, however, exist in a moral vacuum. There are other key issues requiring attention, such as the moral status and interests of the pregnant woman who may desire an abortion, and importantly, the likely consequences of aborting or not aborting a particular foetus. Furthermore, I assert that moral status should be awarded as a matter of degree, based upon the capacities of sentience and self-consciousness an entity possesses. In a bid to reach a coherent conclusion on the issue, the moral status of both foetus and woman, along with the likely results of aborting a particular foetus, must be considered together. Given the multiple facets requiring consideration, I assert that utilitarianism (Mill 1863) offers a coherent framework for weighing and comparing the inputs across a variety of situations, which can determine whether it is ever morally justifiable to have an abortion.
According to St. Thomas Aquinas, Catholic priest and philosopher, a fetus is not a human being because it does not possess language or articulated thought - one of the defining aspects of human nature (qtd. in Eco 51). Theoretically speaking, a fetus is not a human until it can think and talk. With that being clarified, the rest of the essay will first include arguments for, and then arguments against, abortion. Karen Pazol, et al.