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’.
In order to define personhood, one must first define a human. A Human can be thought about in two different senses, a moral human sense and a genetic human sense. In a moral sense, humans can be thought of as a person who is a member of the moral community. In a genetic sense, humans are merely any physical being categorized as a being in the human species. From this one can conclude that a person is a human in the moral sense. Furthermore, characteristics of a person must be defined in order to differentiate moral beings from genetic humans.
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...
... middle of paper ...
...This idea respects the adult person in the moral community, not the infant. It can be compared to the idea that it is wrong to destroy someone’s home or natural recourses. (Disputed Moral Issues, p.189).
Abortion is one of the most controversial topics of this time. Many people have very different views on the rights of the mother and the rights of the unborn baby. Mary Anne Warren is pro-choice and believes that abortion is not considered to be a moral issue because a fetus is not part of the moral community. Unlike her, John Stuart Mill would have considered it to be a moral issue and considered the fetuses’ moral rights. I believe that abortion is not a moral issue, up until a certain point in a pregnancy. Warren’s controversial beliefs on this topic were criticized as being too unethical but she continued to prove her theory and it stands to be rational.
Margaret Olivia Little’s “The Moral Permissibility of Abortion” much like that Judith Jarvis Thomson’s agues over the decent and indecencies of abortion. She comes to a similar conclusion that, “no abortion in early term is ever unjust, though they can be indecent.” Little covers the impact on women throughout a pregnancy and when abortions are sought ‘for the sake of the undeveloped human, and concludes that, “a potential
”[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 draws 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.
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.
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
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).
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 morally permissible. People would find it more understanding and more willing to help someone who is a relative.
The argument that an acorn is not an oak tree delineates where the determination should be made concerning whether a person exists. Indeed, one of the main controversies in the debate over abortion rights, hinges on the question of whether a person exists at the point of conception, during its development in the womb, or after birth. Thomson (47-48) allows that the fetus clearly develops into a human being prior to birth. She points out that, by the tenth week of pregnancy, the fetus has quickly evolved into a living being with discernible human physical characteristics. That is to...
In the article 'A Defense of Abortion' Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that abortion is morally permissible even if the fetus is considered a person. In this paper I will give a fairly detailed description of Thomson main arguments for abortion. In particular I will take a close look at her famous 'violinist' argument. Following will be objections to the argumentative story focused on the reasoning that one person's right to life outweighs another person's right to autonomy. Then appropriate responses to these objections. Concluding the paper I will argue that Thomson's 'violinist' argument supporting the idea of a mother's right to autonomy outweighing a fetus' right to life does not make abortion permissible.
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
“On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion” by Mary Anne Warren is an in depth analysis of what, in Warren’s opinion, it is exactly that defines a person and human being, the moral community, fetal development and the right to life, potential personhood and the right to life, and infanticide. Warren believes that emotion and morality should be entirely separate, and that abortion should be legal for all women, as denial would be stripping women of basic human rights, the rights that a woman holds over an unborn fetus. I personally agree with her arguments on these topics as I agree that women should be allowed to have abortions on their own terms, without subjection of authority or society telling her what she can and cannot do, as well as I agree for the most part on her view of what a person is, potential personhood not outweighing the choice of abortion, and her reasoning on what defines a person of the moral community.
In A Defense of Abortion (Cahn and Markie), Judith Thomson presents an argument that abortion can be morally permissible even if the fetus is considered to be a person. Her primary reason for presenting an argument of this nature is that the abortion argument at the time had effectively come to a standstill. The typical anti-abortion argument was based on the idea that a fetus is a person and since killing a person is wrong, abortion is wrong. The pro-abortion adopts the opposite view: namely, that a fetus is not a person and is thus not entitled to the rights of people and so killing it couldn’t possibly be wrong.
Ward, F. Is the Fetus a Person? The Bible's View. 15 Jan. 2001. Religion and Choice
“How far along in a pregnancy is it until the unborn child is considered human? At what point does it receive basic rights?” These propositions have been the topic of one the most controversial discussions of the century. Based on the research I have completed on this topic, it has been made indisputable to me that life begins at the moment of conception.
What does it mean to be human? Sure, one must have the usual physical features such as fingers, eyes, arms, hands, feet, etc., but what does it really mean? Must the human be able to speak? To take upon the actions of themselves? Whatever it means, it can be interpreted in any way from anyone. The physical attributes of any human can be compared to those of our evolutionary ancestors. However, it is possible to believe that there are many characteristics that make a human, but only six define the true, ideal human.