Abortion Morally Acceptable by Mary Ann Warren - Essay Example

Abortion Abortion morally acceptable In an article en d, Abortion morally acceptable Mary Ann Warren, a teacher of philosophy at the prestigious San Francisco state University argues that abortion the morals in the society permits abortion. She develops her argument systematically beginning with the definition of the most contentious features of the abortion debate. In doing this, she builds a formidable case that I concur with as the discussion below portrays. In defending her case, Warren strives to define a human fetus and investigates whether a fetus has any moral rights. Warren explains that a human being has both the biological and moral definition. The fact that a fetus is a living human cell may make such a human being. However, the stages of development of a fetus influence the definition of a fetus in proving whether such are humans or not. The moral aspect of the definition is equally important and Warren uses such to prove that abortion is morally acceptable. Warren argues that a fetus lacks rationality and self-consciousness two vital features that influence the definition of morality. With such a conclusion, she thus argues that abortion is morally acceptable since a fetus does not qualify as a human being. Warren provides an in-depth analysis of the factors of the case key among which is personhood and the right to life. She explains that the factors that constitute a personhood include the ability to reason, consciousness, ability to communicate and self-concepts among others. Such are basic features that are indeed provable in every person. The author of the article uses the above factors to prove that a fetus is not a person. This makes a fetus right to life equally contentious. She furthers her argument by beginning the discussion on the stages of a fetus and its right to life. A fetus begins developing immediately a sperm fertilizes an ovum. She argues that the early stages of a pregnancy, the fetus is like a clot of blood and lacks any feature that would make it resemble a human. She sets out to explain the various developmental stages of a fetus since a number of people have often argued that at advanced stages a fetus is grown a feature that makes an abortion a murder. She contends with such arguments explaining that maybe the government should set a limit beyond which abortion is illegal. Despite such, the author maintains that the morals in the society permit abortion given the fact that a fetus is not a human being and that a fetus lacks the moral sense. In a conclusion, Marry Warren makes a legitimate argument by concluding that a fetus is not a human being. As such, a fetus should not therefore jeopardize the right to health, life, happiness and even freedom of a woman through an unwanted pregnancy. The author understands that parents love their children and no one parent would wish to terminate a pregnancy. However, the author argues that when a pregnancy threatens the life, freedom, happiness and health of a living human, the laws in the country should permit abortion since morality permits it already. Abortion is not morally permissible John T. Noonan, a law professor at California University, and a philosopher of the Roman Catholic portrays and defends the conservative views shared by the Roman Catholic Church in an article entitled Abortion is not morally permissible. In defending his views, most of which I oppose, the author of the article maintains that an entity immediately becomes a human being soon after the fertilization of the egg during copulation. I observe a number of discrepancies in the philosopher’s arguments key among which his contradiction when he permits abortion in cases where a pregnancy threatens the life of the mother as the discussion below portrays. As explained above, the author exhibits a number of self-contradictions in his support for the conservative approach to abortion. The author spends time disputing arguments proposed by others and in doing this gives credit to some of such claims. He, for example, explains the concept of social visibility that proves that a fetus is not a human and therefore not subject to the application of morality. The author explains, rightly so, that a fetus lacks social visibility. Moral dictates influence the social interactions of people in a society. The absence of a fetus thus implies that they can neither interact nor communicate with other people in the society a feature that implies that morality does not cover their existence in the womb. To prove his argument, the author borrows immense input from the bible thereby making a religious appeal to his audience. He argues on the sanctity of life explaining that since a fetus turns into a life, humans must respect it and create an enabling environment for it to grow. He faults those who developed human rights for ignoring the rights of a fetus despite the relationship between a fetus and a human. He explains that the subjective and abstract judgment for a fetus makes it vulnerable since people ignore the fact that the humanity of the fetus influenced the subsequent fetal rights, which are substantial factors for considerations in moral analysis. In retrospect, Noonan makes significant claims in his article. He argues that people should not terminate pregnancies owing to the fact that pregnancies give forth to life. He makes an emotional and religious appeal when he invokes the sanctity of life as shown in the bible to defend his claims. While such are significant and appeal to a particular group of audiences, I dispute them by basing my argument on some of the facts he presents in the article. The author argues that a fetus is a human. However, he contradicts himself by giving an avid explanation that shows that morality does not extend to the fetus since they are not people. A fetus does not network and does not therefore require morals. Additionally, the author permits abortion in cases where a pregnancy threatens the life of a mother. Just as argued later, mothers rarely abort. Those who opt to abort have valid reasons most of which are the fact that the pregnancies would jeopardize their happiness, health, and life. Furthermore, if the author cannot explain the role of contraception in the modern society, then it becomes difficult for him to validate his claims. The moderate position Jane English shows her experience as a teacher of philosophy when she adopts a moderate position on the case of abortion. She attempts to quell the controversy that surrounds the personality of a fetus. She concludes that whether a fetus is a human being or not, the debate on abortion requires effective considerations of the health and stages of a pregnancy. The author explains that self-defense should serve as an adequate reason to validate an abortion. However, she explains that at advanced stages a fetus resembles a person owing to the fact that they are mature. As such, abortion at such stages should be permitted in cases it would save lives. I concur with her argument since they are similar to those of the first author. The contention in the topic of abortion is whether abortion morality permits abortion. The debate lacks a common ground since it has two contradictory sides with one supporting abortion while the other opposing the act. English attempt to maintain a moderate position and in doing so supports those who argue that morality permits abortion. In validating her moderate viewpoint, the author analyses the arguments proposed by both the proposers and proposers of abortion. She does this by aiding some of her thoughts in an attempt to quell the contention. The author analyses the discussion of personhood, which is a contentious argument in the debate. She concludes by stating that the definition of personhood by either those opposing or proposers is not decisive a feature that enhances the controversy in the debate. She argues that at early stages, the fetus exists as a cell and not a person. However, at advanced stages, a fetus develops conspicuous features that make it a human. The controversy then arises when either party strives to argue for the application of morality to a fetus. The fact that a fetus does not interact with the others in a society and cannot communicate makes it difficult to evaluate the application of morality in such cases. I concur with the authors conclusions since she strives to remain objective in her assessment of the situation. She explains that abortion is not advisable in most cases. However, people should have the right to decide whether they want to have a baby or not just, as they do with contraceptives. In doing this, they must consider how the pregnancy is likely to affect their lives. A woman should not have a baby is the baby threatens her life, health, freedom and happiness. People should have children they want and can care and provide for effectively. This makes motherhood enjoyable and benefiting to both the parent and the baby. Carrying out abortion at early stages is safe and less controversial; she, therefore, discourages abortions at advanced stages unless such seek to save the life and health of the mother. References English, J. (1975). The moderate position: beyond the personhood debate. Canadian Journal of philosophy Vol. 5, 2. Noonan, J. T. (1970). “Abortion is not morally permissible”. Morally of abortion. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Warren, M. A. (1973). Abortion is morally permissible. The monist. Vol. 57 Read More