Abortion presents itself as a religious, moral, economic and legal question. And curiously enough, it also essentially a scientific, biological question.
Is the child in utero a human being, a person? Or is a fetus non-human. Or sub-human matter, and if so, at what “point in time” does the fetus become a human being? Abortion decisions, the supreme court of the United States, as in the decision referred above, studiously avoided weighing the answers of contemporary science. The court determined (7-2) that an unborn child is an “it-thing” that does not become “fully human” until, in effect, “it” is born that as non-human or sub-human life “it” is solely the property of its mother, who may destroy “it” with liberty, whenever and whatever reasons she chooses. In short, the court ruled that the unborn child has no constitutional right life, or like all other innocent
…show more content…
From the moment of conception to the moment death, the biologists say, there is no point at which a living human organism is not a “human being”, be it in the uterine or infantile process of development, or in the process of disintegration called “dying”. Geneticists have now discovered that in the very instant the ovum is fertilised by the gamete, the new human life receives its entire genetic inheritance from the parents: the colour of eyes, hair, skin the shape of the nose, ears, mouth jaw- all the physical characteristics the child will be born with; as well as the intellectual and creative capacities that may lead in adult life to fame, fortune, or obscurity. No two inherited genetic structures are alike. No two humans. It is science, not theology, that has now determined that the unborn child, however tiny, helpless or “unviable”, is not only a human being, but an utterly unique human-in-being, in short a
Abortion has been a controversial charged topic that encompasses complex ethical, moral, legal, and even religious dimensions. The debate surrounding abortion largely revolves around two opposing positions: pro-choice and pro-life. Proponents of the pro-choice stance argue that the decision regarding pregnancy should rest with the woman who is carrying the baby, emphasizing the importance of women's reproductive rights and bodily autonomy. On the other hand, advocates of the pro-life perspective prioritize the inherent value and right to life of the unborn fetus, advocating for its protection and preservation. Given the diverse and often conflicting opinions on this matter, the question of whether a pregnancy should be dependent on the choice
John T. Noonan’s “An Almost Absolute Value in Human History” he proceeds to argue about abortion and when an undeveloped human should be given the rights of an actual human. John T. Noonan poses the question, “how does one determine the humanity of a being.” With this question on hand he considers four ways to consider when “determining humanity.” “Viability: When the undeveloped human ‘can survive outside the womb.’ Experience: When the undeveloped human can ‘retain memories.’
Daily Inventory #4 In his article, “Abortion is Murder”, Dan Ridge argues that people focus on children that are born and do not focus on those who are in the womb. Ridge supports his argument by saying that an unborn baby in the womb is still a child, has a unique DNA, and that he or she should be valued as a human being. His purpose is to tell people that getting an abortion is wrong because you are still killing a human being in order to get people to think about the life they are carrying in their womb before having an abortion.
In Olson’s article on “Was I Ever a Fetus” he states that even scientists prove that embryos are not persons, “embryologists tell us that a human fetus that is less than about six months old cannot remember or experience anything, and has no mental capacities worthy of the name… One's psychological contents or capacities could not be continuous with those of a being with no psychological contents or capacities at all…nothing could be a fetus-or at any rate a fetus that cannot yet think-at one time and a person later on. No person was ever a fetus, and no fetus ever becomes a person”. If we say that a fetus is a human then we are saying that an acorn is already an oak tree and a seed is already a flower, although these objects have the potential to become something, they are not yet actually connected to that future object and therefore are not the future object, they are a whole different type of form. So as Olson explained in his article, since a fetus is not a person, especially because it is not aware of what is going on because it has no psychological contents, then it wouldn’t even matter if it was to be aborted, because it is not feeling anything, the only person feeling a thing is the mother, the carrier of the fetus.
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.
However this fuels the social attitude in which women must seek permission, when many consider abortion to be a right which all women should have access too. This poses the question of if limiting the rights of women is ever justifiable in the best interests of the baby, the roman catholic church argue that a foetus is a person from the moment of conception this means that they to are entitled to the same rights of the mother and to have an abortion is to murder a living being. From this perspective it is apparent that they argue it is justifiable to put the rights of the foetuses; despite this point when a foetus is though to gain rights is a key point to this argument. As personhood would determine when a foetus is able to gain rights, although critics would argue that even still this does not warrant them to have the same full rights that the mother would
However, on the other hand, Bonnie Steinbock in her article “Most Abortions Are Morally Legitimate”, she says that abortions and morally acceptable because fetuses are not living beings, hence they are unconscious and don’t have any moral status because they are unaware about their interests and doesn’t feel pain or anything. She says fetuses does not have any human being rights and it depends on the mother what she wants for her body and she has all the rights to decide whether she wants to be pregnant or not because she is a living being.
Mary Anne Warren establishes a belief that a fetus’s right to live is overruled by an expecting mother’s right to an abortion because it is not a technically a true person until it is born. Warren supports her argument by saying that a nearly full-developed fetus is no more significant than a small embryo because “…it is not fully conscious… it cannot reason or communicate message… and has no self-awareness” (Warren, page 499). In contrast, our text states that “…some fetuses develop the capacity to survive outside the womb…” after nearly being two-thirds fully developed; this means that a fetus is ultimately capable of communication and awareness through it’s movements (Munson and Lague, page 469).
In earlier centuries, Catholic teaching did not center on the notion of the fetus being a human being right at conception but, this notion was later adopted by Catholic theologians. “…from the middle of the seventeenth to the middle of the twentieth century it became and continued to be the prevailing opinion” (Connery, 318). Since this idea was adopted, Catholic teaching supplements it by stating that every human being bears a human soul. This idea has sparked debate between many Catholic theologians because it isn’t positive as to when the fetus is infused with a human soul. Some have been influenced by the works of St. Thomas Aquinas and his theory about the infusion of the human soul while others have been insistent on the teachings of the Catholic
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.
The debate whether abortion is morally permissible or not permissible is commonly discussed between the considerations of the status of a fetus and ones virtue theory. A widely recognized theory of pro-choice advocates can be thought to be that their ethical view is that fetus’s merely are not humans because they lack the right to life since they believe a fetus does not obtain any sort of mental functions or capability of feelings. Although this may be true in some cases it is not in all so explaining the wrongness of killing, between the common debates whether a fetus does or does not obtain human hood, should be illustrated in a way of a virtuous theory. The wrongness of killing is explained by what the person or fetus is deprived of, such as their right to life; not by means of a heart beat or function of one’s body, but by the fact that it takes their ability of potentially growing into a person to have the same human characteristics as we do.
Mary Anne Warren In her seminal article “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion,” argues that because neither the embryo nor fetus nor infants possesses the cognitive traits of personhood, they are akin in moral value to a fish and have no more moral rights than a newborn guppy. 2. Judith Jarvis Thomson In her influential article “A Defense of Abortion,” Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that, even if we fully grant fetuses the status of persons, akin to that of any other person, this alone does not necessitate the moral impermissibility of abortion.
One of the furthermost essential issues in biomedical ethics is the controversy around abortion. There’s a long history on this controversy and it is still critically debated among researchers and the public in both terms of morality and legality. Some of the basic questions argued that may perhaps characterize the importance of the issue: Is abortion morally justifiable? Does the foetus/embryo/zygote have any moral and legal rights? Is the foetus a human being and, if so, should it be protected?
The fetus is technically its own self, they are only relying on the mother for nourishment and to grown until their bodies are able to function without being attached to the mother. Life has to begin somewhere, we don't simply go from "nothing" to
Abortion is a never-ending controversial topic, that is why it is important to examine the definition of a fetus, pro-life arguments, and pro-choice arguments. “According to the Bible, life begins at birth- when a baby draws its first breath” (Knapp 45). A baby is considered living at no other time prior. Arguments among the abortion debate have brought this fact into dispute over many years, even before abortion was legalized in 1973 in the court case Roe vs Wade. As written in the Abortion Controversy, I believe that an early embryo may be called a potential human being.