There are many stances taken on whether abortion is moral. This paper will look at a multitude of arguments to see how abortion ties in with the moral principles that make up biomedical ethics. I support the legalization of abortion because any person, in this case a pregnant woman, has a right to their autonomy in personal matters of their own physical body only in the embryonic stage of pregnancy.
A woman’s right to her autonomy should never be curtailed unless for very important reasons. Is a fetus or embryo an important reason? Justice implies that all members of society receive what is fair or their due. Does that mean fetuses, since they are not apart of society, are not protected by justice? These questions only lead to more questions, and the only way to find answers to these questions is through defining what we know. What are human beings? Why is it wrong to kill humans? Are fetuses/embryos persons? The debate has gone back and forth, with good reason. Is it possible that we cannot classify fetuses and embryos as persons, because society itself may not have a commonly accepted definition?
Mary Ann Warren points out that fetuses do not have personhood by listing several traits observed by persons. “Consciousness and the capacity to feel pain, reasoning, self motivated activity, the capacity to communicate, the presence of self concepts and self awareness either individual or racial or both.” Warren defends her position by adding that not all of these traits are needed to identify if any being is a person, however, not possessing any of these traits leads to the conclusion that the being is indeed not a person. All of the criteria Warren provides are definitely those that define a person. However, are these the only ter...
... middle of paper ...
...e bad, it can be stated that by allowing for an abortion, the fetus is being saved for there ultimate good. The strongest argument is based off these facts, though fetuses will have a future like ours, they at the moment do not have a future like ours. So it can be expressed that the fetuses have a potential to have a future like ours. With that established, the rights of fetuses with a potential to life are outweighed by those of actual people.
There may be some opposition who state both parties here have a right to life and have inherent worth and it would be immoral to say one’s right to life is greater than the others. To give the opposition the satisfaction, even if fetuses do have a right to life that is equal to those of the mother, the right to life does not mean that they have a right to be given the bare minimum to survive or the right not to be killed.
We can begin to see the error in this view by considering Thomson’s comparison of the right to life with the right to vote. Thomson fails to advert the fact that some rights vary with respect to place, circumstances, maturity, ability and other factors, while other rights do not. We recognize that one's right to life does not vary with place as does one’s right to vote…. But to have the right to life is have moral status at all (Lee and George 17).
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...
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).
Warren argues against a fetus being a human in the moral sense. She states we can say a fetus has moral sense to be a human but not in the genetic sense. In order for a fetus to be human in the moral sense it has to be a being in the genetic sense. Warren thinks a fetus does not have full moral status because they are not persons. To be a person you have to have equal moral rights. Warren feels a fetus at any stage will not resemble a person or have significant right to life. A fetus does not have the ability to make decisions or have memories, therefore making them have no right to life. Warren states that a fetus is not a person and should not have morally rights. Warren stated in Potential Personhood and The Right to Life that a fetus does not resemble a person in anyway. She asks about the potential that could develop if the fetus is given the chance to become a person. “It is hard to deny that the fact that an entity is a potential person is a strong prima facie reason for not destroying it; but we need not conclude from this that a potential person has a right to life, by virtue of that potential”(Warren, p.472). After analyzing the concept of a person Warren has come to the conclusion that a fetus at any stage of development does not resemble a person enough to have right to life or potential for being a
In her article, she questions if there is any quality of an embryo that would cause it to be consider as a human. Warren creates a separation between what should be considered a human being and what should be a person. Therefore, Warren claims that although the killing of any human being is wrong but the killing of an unborn child, while it is still in the worm as an embryo cannot be considered in the same stratosphere because a fetus lack all the attributes that could qualify him or her as a person. Furthermore, Warren status that because a fetus lacks the attributes. Warren states this attributes to be the
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 ...
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. 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 commun...
In conclusion Pro-Life and Pro-Choice advocates both claim to hold the righteous claim to saving lives, to each they remain strong in their cause. America is after all, is a nation of democracy.
Over the duration of the last century, abortion in the Western hemisphere has become a largely controversial topic that affects every human being. In the United States, at current rates, one in three women will have had an abortion by the time they reach the age of 45. The questions surrounding the laws are of moral, social, and medical dilemmas that rely upon the most fundamental principles of ethics and philosophy. At the center of the argument is the not so clear cut lines dictating what life is, or is not, and where a fetus finds itself amongst its meaning. In an effort to answer the question, lawmakers are establishing public policies dictating what a woman may or may not do with consideration to her reproductive rights. The drawback, however, is that there is no agreement upon when life begins and at which point one crosses the line from unalienable rights to murder.
Abortion is a widely arguable issue that begs the question whether a mother has the right to abort her child or if the child has the right to life. Abortion is the deliberate removal of a fetus from the womb of the mother, resulting in the death of the child. Abortions are said to be morally permissible after a certain number of months after the mother is pregnant because of the development of the embryo to have a brain. The other side of the argument is that right when the mother is pregnant, it is wrong for the mother to abort because the embryo has a right to life as soon as the mother is pregnant. This is a primary concern for anti-abortion supporters. Mary Warren takes this pro-life stance to defend the life of the fetus by not allowing abortions under any circumstance in her case, “On the Moral and legal status of Abortion”, 1973. Warren argues whether abortion is morally permissible at any stage of pregnancy and under any circumstances. Warren’s argument for her stance on abortion is stated as 1) It is wrong to kill human beings. 2) Fetuses are innocent human beings. 3) Therefore it is wrong to kill fetuses. She claims that the credit for her argument lies in the definition of the term ‘human being’. The definition of human is a member of the biological species Homo Sapien. This includes adults, children, and also fetuses that are unborn in the mother’s womb. This is the argument for why abortion is not morally permissible in any case because fetuses are innocent human beings with an inherent right to life as a biological organism. Along with a moral sense of community, human is being a member of the moral community o...
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 one of America’s most controversial subjects. The participants in this debate have fixed beliefs on the matter at hand. On one side of the debate are people who believe in pro- choice. They argue that choice of a woman is more important than an unborn fetus. They point out that an unborn child is not on the same level of importance as the mother. Also, the pro-life group declares that choice is the sole purpose behind their argument. They believe that if a woman cannot chose to abolish a pregnancy, then she looses one of her basic human rights. The other side of the debate is the pro-life group. Their main concern is that the fetus is a person; therefore, having the same human rights as the mother. As a result, when states pass laws that enable abortions, these states are legalizing murder. When considering an individual’s ethics and values, killing is morally wrong. Therefore, the termination of unborn children is wrong, as well. Abortion, the unethical expulsion of an embryo or fetus, in order to purposely end a pregnancy, should be forbidden because human life begins at conception, economics is not a justification for abortion, and an unwanted child does not justify abortion.
The argument can be made that the fetus deserves the same level of personhood that children and adults do. This can be countered with the fact that children and adults are able to live without occupying the body of another person. The point at which personhood occurs may never be established because of the contrasting views for and against personhood and it would be very difficult to establish any kind of middle ground on personhood.
It is almost unanimously agreed upon that the right to life is the most important and sacred right possessed by human beings. With this being said, it comes as no surprise that there are few issues that are more contentious than abortion. Some consider the process of abortion as immoral and consisting of the deprivation of one’s right to life. Others, on the opposite end of the spectrum, see abortion as a liberty and a simple exercise of the right to the freedom of choice.
Yet, I have clearly shown that the fetus is a separate person with its own heart, lungs, brain, and all different body organs. The oppositions would say that it is the woman’s right to terminate her own pregnancies. Yet, in the eyes of the law two charges are filed when someone kills a woman and her fetus, so how is it her right to kill another human being? A woman doesn’t have four arms, four legs, two heads, four kidneys, two hearts, and two brains… so how is it only her body?