Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
abortion pro life vs pro choice
abortion pro life vs pro choice
formulating views toward abortion. From a utilitarian view
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: abortion pro life vs pro choice
Mary Anne Warren and others argue for a liberal position on the abortion debate. A liberal view of abortion is roughly thought of as an idea that abortions should be able to be terminated at any stage in the pregnancy. In this paper, I will argue a defense of abortion, or a liberal view of abortion, using utilitarianism. I will then respond to a counterargument about the moral worth of the fetus. I will respond to this objection by looking at a strong argument by Marquis. Finally, I’ll conclude that Warren’s is the stronger position. This argument will follow a utilitarian view of the availability of abortion.
To examine the ethics of abortion, it is important to first examine utilitarianism. Utilitarianism generally follows the idea that it is important to do whatever the greatest good for the greatest amount of people is. In Michael Sandel’s book Justice, he gives a definition of utilitarianism as “the highest moral principle will be to maximize utility for the most people” (Sandel, 34). In this essay I will demonstrate how Mary Anne Warren uses this idea to build a solid foundation for her argument in favor of unfettered use of abortions.
Similar to Mary Anne Warren, I believe that abortions should always remain legal because there is no stage in fetal development in which a fetus resembles a person. Warren does make the distinction that a fetus may resemble a human being because they have a full genetic code and potential of become a person, however, Warren defines a person as someone with the capacity for rational thought, therefore a fetus might resemble a human but doesn’t resemble a person. (Warren, 11). While it is hotly contested, a fetus doesn’t have rational thought. For the most part, people would not consider a fet...
... middle of paper ...
...oes present an extremely strong argument against abortion, it is not stronger than Mary Anne Warren’s position for the reason that potential beings do not hold rights and thus have no right to a future while actual beings do hold rights and thus should have an absolute right to an abortion.
All in all, while there are many views and assessments on the ethics and morality of abortion, the utilitarianism view is clearly the best because it maximizes the utility of actual persons, and because fetuses aren't persons, they don't have to be considered in our utility calculus and can justifiably be aborted at any stage in gestation. Although the conservative view restricting abortions is very strong, it deprives actual persons of their utility in favor of the utility of potential beings and therefore in no way, shape, or form follows the general ideas of utilitarianism.
“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.
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. Throughout Judith’s essay, she does not truly give a clear stance, but rather allows her readers to choose for themselves.
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’.
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 that unless a mother had a special commitment towards the fetus she is in no position to make personal sacrifices toward its survival. Secondly, Warren argues that moral accountability should be the basis of personhood. She explains that the fetus does not possess the characteristics of persons at this stage of their development, even though they hold the potential to become persons. She contends that since a fetus is not a person yet, a mother should not be morally obligated to keep it especially if she has no control over its conception. Warren also notes that infanticide and abortion are not the same thing. She claims that killing an infant is not ideal because it does not interfere with the physical integrity and life of persons in the way abortion does. Generally, Warren defends abortion by stating that a Fetus is not yet a person, and even if it were the mother is not morally obligated to keep
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 this paper I will explain Judith Thomson’s argument that abortions are not morally wrong under the condition that the fetus is considered a person. By setting this condition, Thomson advances the argument on why abortions are morally permissible by getting past the triviality of whether the fetus is a person or not. I will explain three cases she presents in which she argues that an abortion is morally justified: (1) It is not wrong to abort a pregnancy that resulted from rape (2) It is not wrong to perform an abortion in order to save the mother’s life (3) In many cases, it is not wrong to abort if the pregnancy resulted from protected, consensual sex and does not threaten the mother’s life. Finally I will present an objection
...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.
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.
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.
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?
Since the early 1970’s abortion has been an important issue to the United States (Tietze 1). The problem begins with whether it is the woman’s choice to keep or terminate her pregnancy or the government’s choice. When this problem happens, a woman loses her right as a person. Most women argue about this issue, but if you look at it, it is the woman’s body, and she should do with it as she pleases. I believe that if a woman, under the right circumstances, should be able to make her own choices in life and not be influenced by family or the government.
Anger and heated debate have long fueled the controversy over abortion. Whether pro-life or pro-choice, both sides of the argument are convinced of the righteousness of their beliefs. There is, however, some confusion surrounding the term “pro-choice” – it does not directly pertain to the spread and use of abortion, but rather, “pro-choicers” advocate the continued legalization of abortion in order to make the choice available and to ensure that women’s fundamental rights are not subjugated. The stance that abortion should be available has its roots in economic concerns, psychological evidence, moral dilemmas, and the Constitution.
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.