For Warren the central question in the debate over abortion is the status of the fetus as a moral person. According to Warren a fetus, while part of the human community in the genetic sense, is not a member of the moral community as it does not meet the personhood criteria, and therefore can be justifiably terminated. It’s important to note the difference between being a biological and moral member of a community. A fetus is biologically human but that doesn’t make it morally human, instead, as Warren presents, a list of criteria must be met to be considered a person and part of the moral community.
An interesting point is that Warren doesn’t say that being human, or of the species Homo sapiens, is a criterion to personhood. This leaves the opening for any other species that may one day meet these criteria to be morally considered as persons, such as chimps, dolphins, or even aliens.
Warren’s five criteria for personhood are consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, capacity to communicate, and presence of self-concepts. While not a definition of what it is to be a person, it does list the central features of moral personhood. The first three particularly seem to encompass the base necessity of cognitive functions to be able to think in a moral fashion. Unfortunately a fetus cannot be said to exhibit any of the five criteria, with the exception of consciousness, and is therefore morally comparable to a chicken or a fish. This comparison is a problem for many who argue that the fetus is a person on account of it being human, but as we already noted that is not enough. "If the right to life of the fetus is to be based upon its resemblance to a person, then it cannot be said to have any more right to life than a ne...
... middle of paper ...
...en asserts that there is a difference and I’m inclined to agree. "So long as the fetus is unborn, its preservation, contrary to the wishes of the pregnant woman, violates her rights... The minute the infant is born, however, its preservation no longer violates any of its mother's rights, even if she wants it destroyed, because she is free to put it up for adoption". The right the mother has to terminating an abortion is dependent on the fetus’s own violation of the mothers’ freedom such that as soon as the fetus is no longer violating the mothers’ rights, the mother herself has no right in violating the fetus/infants existence. Thus Warren’s argument doesn’t support infanticide and she can safely refute the objection that her defense of abortion permits infanticide.
Warren, M. (1982). On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion, Questions of Life and Death, 397-403
Milbauer, Barbara. The Law Giveth: Legal Aspects of the Abortion Controversy. Atheneum, New York: 1983.
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...
Williams, J. (2010, Nov. 23). Wrongful life and abortion. Retrieved on January 23, 2012, from http://www.springerlink.com/content/q69145g545q13hg5/
It is fully dependent on its mother 's body, unlike born human beings. Even if a fetus was alive, the ‘right to life’ doesn 't imply a right to use somebody else 's body. (Millstein par. 3). A fetus cannot survive on its own and if the caregiver does not want to bring the “fetus” into the world, then, unfortunately that is their decision. “People have the right to refuse to donate their organs, for example, even if doing so would save somebody else 's life. The "right to life" also doesn 't imply a right to live by threatening somebody else 's life. Bearing children is always a threat the life of the mother.” (Millstein par. 4). In a nutshell, we see the author clearly advocating for women’s rights and discussing whether the fetus is a human life or not. The author strongly believes that the fetus is not a fully functioning organism and should therefore not be given the option of living. That option is solely up to the mother.” Banning abortion violates a woman 's right to control her own body.” (Millstein par. 38). The author believes that when you don’t give a woman the right to choose what’s the best option for them, then that it is violating women’s
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.
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.
Warren begins her argument by explicitly defining a human person as someone who is a “full-fledged member of the moral community” (Timmons 385). Warren believes that this community consists of all and only people that possess the ability to express the five qualities that were previously mentioned as opposed to all human beings that possess the genetic code of humanity. Being a member of this community entitles a person to have full moral rights, including the rights of life and happiness, which must be respected. Warren justifies that the five qualities are sufficient criteria of determining the apparent “personhood” of a being by stating that such principles of humanity would be used when attempting to study alien life forms on distant planets. Despite discernable differences in physiological and (potentially) cultural development, these alien beings may demonstrate enoug...
Hinman, Lawrence. “Abortion: A Guide to the Ethical Issues.” May 13, 2010. University of San
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
Most people define abortion as the deliberate termination of a pregnancy and it still one of the most popular topics today. In the reading of On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion by Mary Anne Warren, she argues that it is morally permissible for a woman to have an abortion. There are many arguments about abortion that include people saying it is equivalent to murder and also saying that telling a woman she can’t have an abortion deprives her of her right to make the decisions about her own body. Some of the topics that are being argued is 1) is a human fetus really a human being. 2) fetal development and the right to life. 3) if so, what is the moral and legal status of an abortion?
For if human' is used in the same sense in both (1) and (2) then, whichever of the two senses is meant, one of these premises is question begging. And if it is used in two different senses, then of course the conclusion doesn't follow”(Warren 434). With this, she concludes that a human being is one that is a fully active participant in society. In the moral community she insists again that morals and genetics must be kept separate, and that the moral community is composed of “all and only people, rather than all and only human beings”(Warren 435).... ...
Baird, Robert M., and Stuart E. Rosenbaum. The Ethics of Abortion: Pro-life vs. Pro-choice. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1989. Print.
Cline, A. (2014). Ethics of abortion: Is it Moral or Immoral to Have an Abortion?