In this paper, I will investigate the right to life for embryo based on Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan’s article “Abortion: Is it Possible to be both “Pro-life” and “Pro-Choice”?” My conclusion is an embryo is a potential person thus it has the right to life. Sagan and Druyan argue that embryo does not have human characteristics; therefore it is acceptable to abort it. I will show that embryo is at least a potential person, so it has the right to life.
First, I want to convince embryo may not be a person. If “person” here, means biologically a member of human beings, then after 14 days when primitive streak or after 16 days when gastrulation (Damschen, Gómez-Lobo and Schönecker), an embryo is certainly a person, because at this point, the process of individualization is irreversible. At this time, the embryo can be determined as an individual human being. From this I believe that an embryo is a person in biological meaning after 14 or 16 days. However, the definition of “person” given by Boethius is “naturæ rationalis individua substantia” (Boethius 74). What it means is that if someone who does not have rational yet or permanently loses it, it is uncertain that is the one a person. Form Boethius’s view, I argue that embryo may not be a person. It may be a potential person. On the other hand, if “person” means a person who has personhood, the problem is another matter. Mary Anne Warren suggests the concept of personhood (Warren):
1) Consciousness (of objects and events external and/or internal to the being), and in particular the capacity to feel pain;
2) Reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems);
3) Self-motivated activity (activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct exte...
... middle of paper ...
...ng, this does not exclude essential changes in some individuals, make it from something becomes something else, perhaps, more appropriate and less likely to cause misunderstanding of expression should be “has the potential to develop into a person.”
In conclusion, I have argued that an embryo has the potential to develop into a person. Hence an embryo is a potential person, but not a person yet. Therefore, an embryo has the right to life.
Works Cited
Boethius. Liber Contra Eutychen et Nestorium. Turnhout: Brepols, 2010.
Buckle, Stephen. "Arguing from potential." Bioethics 7 1988: 227-253.
Damschen, Gregor, Alfonso Gómez-Lobo and Dieter Schönecker. "Sixteen Days? A Reply to B. Smith and B. Brogaard on the Beginning of Human Individuals." Journal of Medicine & Philosophy April 2006: 165-175.
Warren, Mary Anne. On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion. 22 03 2004.
The topic on abortion gives a moral objection to a fetus’ right to life, while it is questionable whether or not the death of the unborn child is unjustifiable. Although it may seem as if abortion puts women in situations where it is necessary to save the mother’s life in some situations. Until both pro-life and pro-choice can come to a conclusion and an agreement, this debates on abortion will continually go on. Both sides need to be able to draw the line somewhere and balance each other’s weakness.
First I will prove premise 1, “Every fetus is a person,” true. The definition of person according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary is "a human being." Now surely no one would regard a fetus as anything other than human such as a primate or dog. But some still might say, "Well, it isn't aliv...
As to any argument, there are two opposing sides when it comes to the matter of abortions. These two opposers usually refer to themselves as “pro-life” and “pro choice”. Pro-life supporters maintain that abortion is wrong and pro-choice believe that it is a woman’s freedom to choose her pregnancy decisions. When it comes to the topic of abortions, most of us will readily agree that it’s a woman’s choice to decide what her reproductive decisions are, i.e. pro-choice. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is in the question of whether or not abortion is a fundamental right granted to women by the Constitution. Whereas some are convinced that a fetus is considered alive at conception, usually citing the word of God, others maintain that
Jesuit philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1948) believed that humankind follows a certain evolution of mind and body. This process involves a beginning (komogenese), a development (biogenese), and then a peak (noogenese) in which humans reach an Omega Point of higher being. Though his ideas were actually applied on a much broader scale of humanity over a large timespan, the theory can be applied to the individual’s process of human development. Single humans begin as common clones of one another. From this commonality many examine their lives and develop the things within them that make them uniquely them. This development of the self only can be ended at death when the individual converges upon an Omega Point in which he has an elevated understanding of and meaning for life. The characters Edna from The Awakening and Mrs. May from ”Greenleaf” encounter a similar human development in which an individual is formed with an understanding of life. The means by which they achieve this differ greatly.
The following essay will examine the morality of abortion with specific reference to the writings of Don Marquis, Judith Jarvis Thompson, Peter Singer and Mary Anne Warren. I will begin by assessing the strength of the argument provided by Marquis which claims that abortion is impermissible because it deprives a being of a potential “future like ours,” and then go on to consider the writings of Singer, Thomson and Warren to both refute Marquis claims and support my assertion that abortion is morally permissible primarily because of the threat to the freedom and bodily autonomy of women extending the right to life to a foetus in utero would pose.
Abortion is an issue which separates the American public, especially when it involves the death of children and women. When an abortion occurs, the medical doctor removes the fetus from the pregnant woman. This particular act has separated the public. Many believe that abortion is not morally and ethically correct. On the other hand, some people believe that carrying and delivering the unborn child will hinder the safety of the mother, then an abortion is needed. Each view has its own merit in the debate. This debate has separated the public into two sections: pro-life and pro-choice. A pro-lifer opposes abortion, whereas, a pro-choicer believes that the decision to abort the child should be left to the mother because she is the one carrying the child. In this paper, there will be topics that will be discussed concerning pro-life and pro-choice. I hope at the end of this paper, the reader is able to gain more knowledge concerning each topic. Every woman has the right to control her own body.
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.
The definition of a person is an aspect of the abortion issue which raises some very difficult questions. Is an unborn baby a person? When does the unborn baby become a person? This is a difficult question because in order for one to answer it, he must define the essence of a person. When describing the essence of something, one needs to describe the necessary and sufficient conditions of that thing. So how does one define the essence of a person? Kant describes a person as a rational being. Some people define the essence of a person from more of a biological standpoint. Nevertheless, defining the essence of a person is a very difficult thing for a group of people to agree on. One’s own definition of a person would most likely greatly impact his opinion on whether abortion is morally justified ...
Abortion is an important and rather popular topic in the philosophical world. On one side of the argument, pro choice, Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that abortion is permissible because the pregnancy might not have been voluntary or the mother’s life is at risk if she continues on with the pregnancy. On the opposing side of the argument, Don Marquis argues that abortion is wrong because it takes away all the potential things a fetus could value in their future life. In this paper, I will argue against Don Marquis view of abortion. I will begin by explaining that Marquis does not take into consideration the effect the pregnancy may have on the mother, and I will talk about how Thomson does take the mother into consideration. Next, I will criticize
The permissibility of abortion has been a crucial topic for debates for many years. People have yet to agree upon a stance on whether abortion is morally just. This country is divided into two groups, believers in a woman’s choice to have an abortion and those who stand for the fetus’s right to live. More commonly these stances are labeled as pro-choice and pro-life. The traditional argument for each side is based upon whether a fetus has a right to life. Complications occur because the qualifications of what gives something a right to life is not agreed upon. The pro-choice argument asserts that only people, not fetuses, have a right to life. The pro-life argument claims that fetuses are human beings and therefore they have a right to life. Philosopher, Judith Jarvis Thomson, rejects this traditional reasoning because the right of the mother is not brought into consideration. Thomson prepares two theses to explain her reasoning for being pro-choice; “A right to life does not entail the right to use your body to stay alive” and “In the majority of cases it is not morally required that you carry a fetus to term.”
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...
instances that before an embryo could survive outside the womb, medical tests could determine a possible serious health related issues and a person should have the opportunity to decide whether to bring that embryo further in term to attempt a life outside the womb. The examples of premature babies being born every day across the country that do not survive demonstrate that viability occurs later than conception. As such, I do not believe that we can say that an embryo from the moment of conception has all the rights of a mother and that we must say abortion is wrong in all situations.
No matter how many times you say it isn’t viable, therefore it doesn’t have a right to life, doesn’t change that it is indeed a life. Someone (Pro Choice obviously) brought to me the point that bacteria is life. Why do we get to use hand sanitizer and kill millions by the minute? No matter what you label this innocent life, it is a life none the less.
According to Judith Thomson in her book “A Defense of Abortion”, a human embryo is a person who has a right to life. But, just because the human fetus has the right to life does not mean that the mother will be forced to carry it (Thomson, 48). Naturally, abortion may be seen as the deliberate termination of a pregnancy before the fetal viability. Though people have understood this, the topic of abortion has remained a controversial issue in the world. Individuals are divided into “Pro-choice” and “Pro-life” debaters depending on their opinion on the morality of the action. "Pro-life," the non-consequentialist side, is the belief that abortion is wrong, generally because it equates to killing. "Pro-choice," the consequentialist view, however,
The ethics of abortion is a topic that establishes arguments that attempt to argue if abortion is morally justified or not. Philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson wrote a pro- choice piece called “A Defense of Abortion.” In this paper, she presents various arguments that attempt to defend abortion by relating it to the woman carrying the fetus and her right in controlling her body. On the other side of the spectrum, philosopher Don Marquis wrote a pro- life paper called “Why Abortion Is Immoral.” Ultimately, Marquis argues that abortion is immoral with rare exceptions because it is resulting in the deprivation of the fetus’s valuable future. He supports his paper by creating the future-like-ours argument that compares the future of a fetus to the