A Womans Right to Abortion: the Concept of Genetic Humanity - Essay Example

Abortion Mary Warren unconditionally supports a woman's right to abortion for preventing an unwanted pregnancy. She goes to the extent of not placinga time limit on aborting-she does not insist that it should be done only in the first trimester of pregnancy. She logically argues out her case, refuting the traditional one against abortion, which states that " it is wrong to kill innocent human beings, and fetuses are innocent human beings, then it is wrong to kill fetuses."(Warren 1996) This she does by defining 'moral humanity' (or personhood), and distinguishing it from 'genetic humanity'. It is the concept of genetic humanity, which anti-abortionists use to justify their stance, as mentioned above. The traditional meaning of 'human'-genetic humanity-refers simply to any life, which is or has the potential to become genetically human. In ordinary parlance the term 'genetic' may be equated with 'physical'. And being genetically human, a fetus has as much a right to life as a baby or an adult. Once conception is over, a woman does not have the right to eliminate the embryo, even if it is completely in her power, and its existence conditional on hers. Warren distinguishes between the moral and genetic states of being human, by stating five attributes of moral human existence. 1)"Consciousness"-of objects and happenings-both outside and within the self. Here, an emphasis is paced on the capacity to experience pain. 2)"Reasoning"-a capacity to learn from experience, and solve new and relatively more complex problems. 3) Ability to undertake "self-motivated activity", that is not directly attributable to genetic and/or external control. 4)"The capacity to communicate" messages of indefinite variety and content. 5) The existence of a "self-concept and self-awareness", individual, racial or both. (Warren, 1996) Using the above criteria, Warren comes to the conclusion that being human is not the preserve of homo-sapiens alone. It is quite possible that some other form of life could exist which has all the above characteristics without being a genetic human being. She gives the example of aliens from another planet, and also talks about highly developed robots/ humanoids of the future who could qualify as persons without being genetically human. On the other hand, a fetus, although genetically human, has no self-awareness or consciousness. A fetus is the extension of the body of its host (mother). Therefore, a fetus may be denied the right to life, and aborted. (Warren, 1996) By an extension of the same premise, it could be argued that new born infants not being persons-not possessing the ability to reason or a self-concept-can be killed. This line of logical reasoning is dangerous as it gives the power of life and death over an infant to his/her mother/father/any other person with partially or fully developed ability to think, reason and emote. The danger arises from the fact that not all persons are altruistic or moral, and some may be ready to sacrifice the life of an infant for the sake of personal benefit. ("Why should I look after a baby, when it is so inconvenient It binds me down. I can't afford it.") There is also post-partum depression-a medical/emotional condition experienced by many new mothers-which makes it difficult for her to care for a child. It is to avoid the dangers of blurring the line between eliminating a fetus and eliminating a child that most pro-abortionists state that while it is okay to kill a fetus, it is definitely not okay to kill a child, even if the child is born monstrously malformed or grossly non-human-like. They would insist that all possible measures should be taken to keep such a baby alive. McKinley seeks to clear this impasse faced by pro-abortionists by differentiating between physical and social dependence. A fetus is completely physically dependant, sharing the very space occupied by the mother. He states that two beings cannot share the same physical space without one becoming completely dependant on the other. And in such a case, it is the prerogative of the more powerful to decide whether to share that space with the other. As in the case of a woman and her fetus. A woman may decide to share her space, limit her rights, and take the fetus to full term. That decision would be at the risk of her personal comfort, health and even life. Therefore the decision whether she should take the fetus to full term or not should be made by an adult woman, without any coercion, using her free will. Unlike a fetus, a baby is not physically dependant, but socially dependant. (McKinley, 1995) McKinley's argument in favour of abortion, and his definition of a physically independent human person is practically oriented, guiding us in deciding whether abortion is moral or not. Here, he does not talk about the stage at which a fetus may be aborted, however. Doctors the world over, (subject to legislation) have adopted a period which is safe for the mother's health, and do not consent to performing a medical termination of pregnancy beyond eight weeks from conception. Apart from this, there is legislation in many countries (India, for instance) to ban abortion used as a technique for gender selection, by first determining the sex of the baby through sonography, and then aborting fetusus of the 'wrong' gender. In such cases, when due to social prejudices, couples are known to favour male infants, there results a skewed sex ratio with disastrous future consequences-the ultimate dying out of the human race. Warren's conclusions (stated below) seem shocking at first. But before we hastily pass adverse judgement on her and her views from a moral high horse, we should make an effort to understand her approach to the issue, and compare it with McKinley's approach, which is different. Warren's approach is completely at a philosophical plane. In other words, it is an attempt to make us think logically. By logical thought she comes to certain 'conclusions' that may not be acceptable to a middle-of-the-road pro-abortionist. These conclusions are that 1) Abortion is acceptable at any time during a pregnancy, the only criteria being a being a woman's own safety and her desire to go in for an abortion. A fetus has no rights against those of the mother. So, a fetus may be eliminated even for the reason that pregnancy may come in the way of a European holiday that the mother plans. 2) Infanticide is also okay, under certain circumstances. "when an infant is born into a society-which unlike ours-is so impoverished that it simply cannot care for it adequately without endangering the survival of existing persons, killing it or allowing it to die is not necessarily wrong-provided that there is no other society which is willing and able to provide such care." (Warren, 1996) Besides, if an infant is born with severe deformity (mental or physical) and can be kept alive only on condition of severe pain to self, and high emotional, social, and financial cost to the parents, who are unwilling to bear with this, the infant may be terminated. This decision rests with the parents, since the infant cannot take the decision. Warren defends her stance thus. She states that some would find her arguments extreme, but to understand the moral issues involved in abortion, it is necessary to reconsider the moral aspects of euthanasia and infanticide as well. It is a philosopher's job to expand the limits of thought. Whatever the conclusions reached, this does not preclude compassion and humanity in the practical application of the result of these thought processes (Warren, 1996). And therein lies the justification for Warren's conclusions. She is a thinker who raises the necessary issues relating to life and death, and the exercise of power over life and death. Based on such thinking, it is necessary for governments and societies to frame legislation that clearly delineates what is permitted action in these areas. For not all people are 'thinkers', and therefore they need guidelines for conduct. And not all are compassionate or altruistic, so they need to have their powers delineated too. Works Cited Warren, Mary Anne On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion from Biomedical Ethics. 4th ed. T.A. Mappes and D. DeGrazia, eds. New York: McGraw- Hill, Inc. 1996, pp. 434-440. http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/warren_article.html, retrieved 21st July, 2008 McKinley, Brian Elroy Why Abortion is Moral , retrieved 21st July, 2008 Read More