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 …show more content…
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 …show more content…
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
Likewise, Thompson holds that a pregnant woman possesses the right to defend herself against her attacker. No matter if the invader is a rapist attempting to harm her from outside or a foetus that may harm her from the inside. The woman still has a moral liberty to repel her attacker by killing the intruder. Killing a person and abolishing their ‘right to life’ cannot be named as immoral when performed in self-defence. Therefore, an abortion is permissible in the ‘extreme case’ whereby continuing with the pregnancy may result in serious injury or death of the woman. However, it can be argued that although it is permissible to act in self-defence against an invader, the foetus is no such invader and should not be treated like one. Unlike the violinist who was artificially attached to you, the foetus is surviving due to the mother’s biological organs and by the natural processes of reproduction and this yields a special relationship. Therefore, this appears to be a crucial difference between the violinist and the foetus. The natural environment of the violinist is not your body, whereas the natural environment of the foetus is within the mother’s womb. Furthermore, the violinist is trespassing because your body is not their natural environment whereas a foetus cannot
“I intend to judge things for myself; to judge wrongly, I think, is more honorable than not to judge at all.” What author Henry James meant by this was that it is better to make up one’s mind and have an opinion than to remain complacent, such as the case of Mary Anne Warren. Warren’s arguments for abortion’s possible permissibility are lacking in substance. The aim of my paper is to discuss Warren’s insufficient criteria for personhood and address the problem with her concept of potential personhood.
I also see that it may not be immoral for a woman to abort if she has made the most effort to avoid pregnancy using contraceptives. However, as Thompson states, I think in this situation a mother “ought” not to have an abortion. A fetus should have the right to life, however, the mother should also have the right to determine how to use her own body. So I too find it difficult to determine a solid stance on this issue. I’ve always believed that a fetus is a person, but I’ve also always struggled to discern when it is that the fetus becomes a person.
In Judith Jarvis Thompson’s article “A Defense of Abortion” she explores the different arguments against abortion presented by Pro –Life activists, and then attempts to refute these notions using different analogies or made up “for instances” to help argue her point that women do have the right to get an abortion. She explains why abortion is morally permissible using different circumstances of becoming pregnant, such as rape or unplanned pregnancy.
... tagging along. By taking the foundation of America and creating this so-called right to abortion, the Supreme Court attacks not only the value of human life itself, but the liberty of all Americans as well.[22] They next referred to the Emolument Clause and to the Electors provisions, which would also exclude most children and anyone unable to “[hold] any office of Profit or Trust.”[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 draw 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:
However, we have reverted back to the case of rape. If a fetus conceived voluntarily has the right not to be aborted due to how it was conceived, then the fetus conceived from rape should also have that same right. Instead of creating a distinction of cases where the fetus has a right to use the body of a pregnant person, Thomson instead makes a distinction of when abortion would be morally wrong.
Whether or not abortion is morally right or wrong, the fact remains that a woman
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 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 ...
...ther’s sovereignty over her body outweigh the right of an unborn child to live. The answers to these questions are very diverse as a result of the diversity of the American society. With the issue of abortion, one’s attitude toward it is going to be based on many things such as religious background and personal morals. There is no black and white answer to the abortion issue. Luckily we live in a country where we are able to decide for ourselves whether something is morally right or wrong. Thus, ultimately, the choice is ours. As with the many other ethical issues which we are faced with in our society, it is hard to come to a concrete answer until we are personally faced with that issue. All we can do is make an effort to know all of the aspects which are involved so that we may be able to make a sound decision if we were faced with this problem in our own lives.
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
In her essay “Abortion, Intimacy, and the Duty to Gestate,” Margaret Olivia Little examines whether it should be permissible for the state to force the intimacy of gestation on a woman against her consent. Little concludes that “mandating gestation against a woman’s consent is itself a harm - a liberty harm” (p. 303). She reaches this conclusion after examining the deficiencies in the current methods used to examine and evaluate the issues of abortion. Their focus on the definition of a “person” and the point in time when the fetus becomes a distinct person entitled to the benefits and protections of the law fails to capture “the subtleties and ambivalences that suffuse the issue” (p. 295). Public debate on the right to life and the right to choose has largely ignored the nature of the relationship between the mother and the fetus through the gestational period and a woman’s right to either accept or decline participation in this relationship.
Mary Anne Warren was a philosophy professor and distinguished by her beliefs on the topic of abortion. Warren’s thoughts on the morality of abortion were formed based on who is included in the ‘moral community’. Her thoughts on who should be included in the moral community are based on ‘personhood’.
...e open to all women at any point of pregnancy, and that the woman reserves the right as a fully conscious member of the moral community to choose to carry the child or not. 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. However much she was inconsistent on the topic of infanticide, her overall writing was well done and consistent. Warren rejects emotional appeal in a very Vulcan like manner; devout to reason and logic and in doing so has created a well-written paper based solely on this rational mindset.
Abortion “is an issue that raises questions about life and death, about what a person is and when one becomes a person, about the meaning of life, about the rights of women, and about the duties of men”(Velasquez 485). Abortion is an unresolved ethical issue that has been in doubt for many years because one can argue that you are killing an innocent person/fetus but many argue that is not person because they don’t have a conscious or the characteristics that defines a “person”. John Stuart Mill in a way justifies abortion, Mill is known to be openly speak about women’s rights and about human rights. Although, it might be immortal to end someone’s life one might argued that the individual has the right to choose and have the option. But in