Mary Anne Warren's Rights Of Abortion

Numerous attempts have been made to define the term fetus. Scholars have attempted to use both biological and psychological aspects, some have gone further to outline characteristics and conditions that define a fetus (Garrett et al., 2011). Others have tied the developmental aspects related to viability, birth and conception. The United States Supreme Court definition provides an alternate decision. The case of Planned Parenthood vs. Casey and Roe vs. Wade best defines a fetus in terms of viability (Nocon, 2010).

Don Marquis, a theorist on abortion, debated that abortion was morally wrong and that anti-abortionists should consider fetuses’ human beings (Jones & Kooistra, 2011). He stated the term “prima facie” which is Latin for “at first glance”, which means something is accepted as true unless proven to be untrue (Jones & Kooistra, 2011). In Marquis’s argument he stated that it cannot be proven nor disproven that a fetus is considered a living being.

In the third trimester when a fetus is capable of surviving outside a woman’s body abortions are illegal, only the government can interfere. This sparked great controversy out side the courts and inside the

In this paper, I will review Mary Anne Warren’s stance on the morality of abortion and provide my objection to her view that a fetus is not a human on the basis that a fetus does not contain the characteristics, generated by Warren, to be considered a Homo sapien; therefore, warranting abortion morally acceptable. The basis of my argument against abortion is on the premise that a fetus, by the Law of Nature, is to be protected and preserved since it is considered innocent and a human being, based on the idea that a human being is something bodily and physical, an individual and a being in time (Iglesias). Mary Anne Warren defines abortion as the deliberate action to remove a fetus from a human female’s womb per her request resulting in the death of the fetus (Warren 307). By identifying what is meant by abortion before furthering her argument, Warren clearly identifies the topic of her argument so that there be no confusion.

Dorothy E. McBride (2008) explains that in the eighteenth century, when the Constitution was outlined and established, there was a common conviction that it was probable for the developing embryo to have a soul as early as during the second trimester of the pregnancy. This trimester, also called quickening, was thought of as a time where something significant changed in the pregnancy. The fetus was now viewed upon as independent life and was no longer simply a clump of cells; it was a baby. As a result it soon became justifiable to punish whoever aborted a quick fetus, as it was the equivalent of killing a baby. Prevailing U.S. law is, in this context, considerably comparable to the abortion law that was created more than 300 years ago — both

Some classify the state of an unborn child by scientific terms such a “fetus”, rather than a “baby” to make it seem more impersonal, therefore, making it more acceptable to “experiment” on. According to Assertion 4, there should be no “question of consent” about embryonic stem cell research because a “human being is being killed” to “benefit another”. Owens 2 (Assertion 4) Why punish a baby for your mistake, why punish a baby for someone else 's sake, why punish a baby who cannot escape? What right do we have to rip a baby from their mother’s womb, provoke their earthly life, and experiment on them like a lab rat?

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion In the article 'A Defense of Abortion' Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that abortion is morally permissible even if the fetus is considered a person. Morally philosophy paper by Judith Jarvis Thomson first published in year 1971, granting for the sake of argument that the fetus has a right to life, she uses thought experiments to argue that the fetus's right to life doesn't trump the pregnant woman's right to control her own body and its life-support functions, and that induced abortion is therefore not morally impermissible. In particular 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, therefore abortion is wrong.

The group made up of pro-choicers decide to look back throughout history and the years of struggle women had to seek an abortion. They believe that the right to have an abortion should be equivalent to a constitutional right, almost like the right to vote. Pro-choice believers also consider what it takes to make a fetus as a person. Philosopher Mary Ann Warren claims that a being must have a consciousness and ability to feel pain, a developed capacity for reasoning, self- motivated activity, the capacity to communicate messages of an indefinite variety of types, and self-awareness in order to be considered as a person. With this reasoning, Warren believes that even the most developed fetus does not qualify as a person.

Before Roe v. wade the number of deaths from illegal abortions was around 5000 and in the 50s and 60s the number of illegal abortions ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. These illegal abortions pose major health risks to the life of the woman including damage to the bladder, intestines as well as rupturing of the uterus. The choice to become a mother must be given to the woman most importantly because it’s her body, her health, and she will be taking on a great responsibility. A woman’s choice to choose abortion should not be restricted by anyone; there are multiple reasons why abortion will be the more sensible decision for the female.

The assigned readings for today included chapters 3 and 4 of the book “Reconstructing Motherhood and Disability in the Age of ‘Perfect’ Babies”. The third chapter of the book is a discussion of the idea of “personhood”, and how disability affects personhood in babies with disabilities (Landsman, 2009). The fourth chapter is a discussion of parental diagnosis, the perceived infallibility of doctors, and denial vs. hopeful outlooks (Landsman, 2009). Based on what I have learned about personhood in other courses, it is the idea that a fetus should be prescribed the right to live, like any other “person”.

Reproductive Rights as Human Rights “Throughout human history women have faced discrimination and violence and, despite significant progress, still do. But today, it is possible to help change that reality through the International Human Rights system that arose from the ashes of World War II”. There has been a lot of controversy regarding Reproductive rights all over the world. Defenders of women’s autonomy rights argue that “women can never be free to determine their own destiny in life if they cannot decide when and whether to bear children, a right ultimately guaranteed only by the right to choose abortion at any time” . On the other hand defenders of fetal rights argue that a “fertilised cell (zygote), an embryo, or a fetus, is an ‘unborn

This same way of thinking means that a fetus has no choice or ability to make decision when it comes to whose womb they inhabit as a result of failed contraception. Again, I am not arguing that abortion would not be morally permissible in the case of failed contraception but I am saying that there are key differences in intent and rational capacities between a malicious burglar and an unknowing fetus that weaken this analogy. Thomson also says that a burglar who breaks in should not have a right to stay in your house. While this is true, there are very few cases where a burglar will stay in your house if there intent is to steal something and get away. Staying in the house would be irrational if they want to get away with the crime.

Therefore Abortion is wrong. Warrens criticism to this argument is the word “human” is an ambiguous word; making the argument an equivocation. He states that there are 2 senses to the word human. A creature can be a human genetically by DNA or morally by “personhood” (consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated, communication, self-awareness). An example of equivocation is “Doritos are chip.

In “A Defense of Abortion,” Judith Thomson argues with a unique approach regarding the topic of abortion. For the purpose of the argument, Thomas agrees to go against her belief and constructs an argument based on the idea that the fetus is a person at conception. She then formulates her arguments concerning that the right to life is not an absolute right. There are certain situations where abortion is morally permissible. She believes that the fetus’s right to life does not outweigh the right for the woman to control what happens to her own body.

(Tanner) Pro-choice defenders also say that it is the woman 's right to choose to have the baby or not, forgetting the baby 's rights. The life of a human being begins at the moment of conception, and it is not the fetus´s fault if the mother wasn 't ready to have a baby or if the situation in which baby was conceived wasn 't ideal. For example, if the baby is conceived by rape, the baby should not pay the consequences of other people, he or she has not done anything wrong .”Compassion for the mothers is extremely important, but it is never