A Fetus Does Not Have The Right To Life Essay

     Abortion has always been a controversial subject among everybody whether they are involved directly or indirectly, whether they are for it or against it. It is nearly impossible to find someone who doesn't have an opinion about abortion. Both those who favor or oppose abortion make superior arguments to defend their beliefs and views. Personally, I think every last person is entitled to his or her own opinions, beliefs, thoughts, and rights. And yes, women have rights too, and denying women the right to choose abortion in the early stages of fetal development is denying her rights as a US citizen and is also discriminating against her. I think that abortion should be restricted to the first 21 weeks, which

Marquis argument is superior to others as he avoids casuistry terms such as “human life,” or “human being” and rests on the ethics of killing, which also apply to the fetus (Gedge & Waluchow, 2012, p224). Killing a fetus denies it the right to a valuable life just as adult human beings have. This deems abortion morally wrong.

Abortion is widely debated across the world and in 1973 Roe v. Wade would start an issue with ethical and legal issues. There are multiple cases arguing why it should or shouldn’t be lawful to go through with this procedure. Women should have the right to get an abortion as It is her rights to decide if they aren’t able to be able have a child, the woman shouldn’t have to rely on anyone else, she should be able to make this decision as they have to carry it for 9 months and endure the physical pain. Abortion should not be illegal because it is justifiable in cases of rape, or when the woman has mental health or financial issues.

Warren felt that a fetus can meet none of the cases for personhood and therefore abortion should be legal without

The general argument made from Warren is (1) If a person, they have the right to life, (2) The fetus is not considered a person, and (3) Therefore, since the fetus is not a person they do not have a right to life. Also, (4) A human being needs all the morals of personhood to be considered a person, (5) An infant does not have morals, and (6) Therefore, an infant is not a person because the do not have the morals to be considered a person.

“With respect to the right to life, the word 'person,' as used in this article and in the fifth and fourteenth articles of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, applies to all human beings, including their unborn offspring at every stage of their biological development, irrespective of age, health, function, or condition of dependency.” A quote from the Human Life Amendment, which was at stake at the time of the case. Agreeing completely with this quote, breaking it down it means that even though the child is unborn it is still a living

In Mary Anne Warren’s “The Abortion Issue,” children are not persons in the empirical sense. Warren believes that prior to a certain point in a pregnancy, the child does not have “the capacity to understand” the ramifications of what an abortion would be, therefore the abortion does not infringe upon the rights of the unborn fetus. She states that: “…in the ways that matter from a moral point of view, human fetuses are very unlike human persons, particularly in their early months of development”(152). In essence, personhood as defined by Warren can only come after the first trimester. Before that time, the fetus does not have the sentience that would make it a person. Warren’s main criteria for

Yet, it is your duty to look after your baby. As Kant suggests, if you

Abortion is a serious topic that people have been debating about for years. Everywhere you turn the topic of abortion presents itself, on TV, in the newspapers, in books and magazines. It already has, and will continue to cause, controversy for years to come. As long as abortion remains legal, pro-life advocates will continue to protest what they believe to be these horrible acts of murder.

Mary Anne Warren is one of the top advocates for keeping abortion legal without any restrictions on it. She states that the morality of abortion is dependent on the moral status of the baby, not simply on the rights of the mother. She criticizes those who defend abortion as the right to control one's body: "it is at best a rather feeble argument for the permissibility of abortion. Mere ownership does not give me the right to kill innocent people whom I find on my property…" (The Monist, pg. 44) Using this analogy she shows that just because the fetus is inside us it does mean we have a right to terminate it.

Even if a fetus is defined as a human being because it has a potential life, if the fetus does not yet aspire to live. It is impossible to argue that the fetus values its future yet, so why should it have a right to it?

One common stance on abortion stems from the thoughts of the fetuses’ potential personhood. In order to determine this, first the status of the fetus should be examined. If the fetus has a right to life, there is an assumption that it is in fact living. A philosopher, Mary Anne Warren, believes that because the fetus has not reached personhood it is not guaranteed the right to life. Warren would argue that a person must have the capacity for rational thought to be considered a person. Clearly a fetus is not a rational thinker. Unfortunately, some believe this is not a clear enough definition, but in my opinion, to be a rational thinker one must have the ability to comprehend a situation and speak upon their own behalf. Obviously, a fetus does not have this ability therefore I do not consider a fetus a potential person. Also, Warren states even if the potential person does have some prima facie right to life such a right cannot outweigh a woman’s right to abortion. Again, I agree with this claim because as someone who is pro-choice I believe the women has the higher position to make the choice of abortion. In contrast to

“On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion”, an essay written by Mary Anne Warren, defend abortion in any stage of a woman’s pregnancy (pg 468). Warren argues that the potential to become a human being is not the same as being human and deserving the same right to life (pg. 468-472). This essay asserts that in order to be human, one must possess five particular traits (pg. 470). These trait are consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, the ability to communicate, and awareness of oneself (pg. 470). Warren claims that since a fetus has not yet acquired all of the traits, then that fetus is not human and therefore does not have the right to life (pg. 470).

Many would argue that a fetus is a potential person because it is has the potential to become what it is not yet. However, does a potential person have potential rights? An example was used: does a potential doctor have the rights of a licensed doctor? When one is describing potentiality, All he is really describing is what that thing is not. By declaring that a fetus is a potential person, one is also stating that a fetus is not a person. As one can see, this issue of the essence of a person and whether a fetus is a person is a very complicated one. This becomes seven more complicated if one takes into account the issue of rights. Now, the concept of human rights, that is to say, what American society dictates as human rights, conflicts heavily with itself. On one hand, we form a deep and heavy opinion on one’s right to life. On the other, we hold an equally strong opinion on one’s freedom to live that life as they please. American society by and large has a firm belief in an individuals right to live. Therefore, if one comes to the conclusion that a fetus actually is a person, then that fetus should receive the protection to it’s right to live, as much as you or I. This society also holds the firm belief in one’s right to the sovereignty of his or her own body, equal to that of one’s right to live. In this case, it is imperative that we understand what liberties we can and cannot take upon ourselves

Appealing to reason rather than religious beliefs, abortion is not wrong because essentially you are not killing a person. According to Warren five conditions for personhood are consciousness (of objects and events external and/or internal to the being), and in particular the capacity to feel pain; reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems); self-motivated activity (activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control); the capacity to communicate, by whatever means, messages of an indefinite variety of types, that is, not just with an indefinite number of possible contents, but on indefinitely many possible topics; and the presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness.(Rachels) These conditions are relevant to the abortion debate because the fetus does not fulfill any of these condition, therefore a fetus is not a person. So, a fetus does not have a significant right to life. Warren presents these five solid conditions for personhood to verify if a fetus is actually considered a person. Considering it is wrong to kill an innocent person. Therefore, if a fetus is not considered a person, is abortion wrong? I plan on showing how abortion is morally permissible. The notion of personhood is important to the argument against abortion because it helps to show those against abortion that it isn’t wrong because necessarily abortion is not killing a person because a fetus is not considered a person from the five