Abortion Is Morally Permissible?

In Judith Jarvis Thomson’s philosophy paper, A Defense of Abortion, she argues that abortion is permissible because an individual’s right over their own body outweighs a fetus’s right to life. In this paper I will focus on whether or not abortion is always permissible. First, I will present Thomson’s argument which says that abortion is sometimes permissible. I will do so by describing her “famous violinist” thought experiment. Next, I will object to Thomson’s claim and expand the scope of her argument by arguing that abortion is in fact, always permissible. I will do so by presenting a new thought experiment. Finally, I will conclude in saying that Thomson is correct and abortion is in fact only sometimes permissible.

Abortion is defined as “The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.” (Oxford Dictionary). Nearly three out of ten women in the U.S. have an abortion by the time they are 45-years-old (Planned Parenthood). Abortion is morally permissible because an abortion prevents a woman and the potential child’s suffering. Abortion is moral because it is a fundamental right of competent adults to make their own decisions on the course of their medical treatment, can alleviate further suffering in immoral cases, such as rape and is protected by rule of law.

There are many factors that are taken into consideration when determining if abortion is morally permissible, or wrong including; sentience of the fetus, the fetuses right to life, the difference between adult human beings and fetuses, the autonomy of the pregnant woman, and the legality of abortion. Don Marquis argues that abortion is always morally wrong, excluding cases in which the woman is threatened by pregnancy, or abortion after rape, because fetuses have a valuable future. Mary Anne Warren contends that late term abortions are morally permissible because birth is the most significant event for a fetus, and a woman’s autonomy should never be suspended.

In On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion, Mary Anne Warren discusses a few arguments against abortion, namely bringing into play whether the fetus is actually a person, or “not a member of the moral community”. She

When the beginning of life actually occurs is clearly not a topic to be taken lightly in today’s modern world. Majority of the population’s answers to this question are based on each individuals opinion and is supported by what they believe. In general, there are two sides of the argument. One is that life begins at the time of conception. The other belief is that life doesn’t begin until the drawing of the first breath. The true dilemma here is not the accurate pinpointing of life’s beginning, but the questions that accompany this topic and each individuals desire to do the right thing, the moral thing. While one point of view allows for abortion the other does not. The issue raises many questions of morality. Is abortion moral? When does it become murder? When is it permissible? (Life of the mother at stake / A product of rape). Should it be the mother’s choice? Many arguments for both sides pull from scripture and scientific articulations.

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

Mary Anne Warren (p.195-196) points out the exceptional circumstances of pregnancy; where one human is entirely biologically reliant on another and where it is impossible for complete personhood rights to not be in conflict between the foetus and the mother. Consider the following case. A mother and an expecting mother both express an intent to kill their child or unborn child respectively. Services are available to take the postnatal children from their mother without affecting her body. Yet to protect the foetus, one would have to imprison the mother until birth, or worse, force a caesarean on her. Warren (193) points out that forced caesareans are not merely a hypothetical

Warren’s thesis is that fetuses are not persons and since only persons have full moral rights and person-like beings have a right to life in particular, fetuses do not have a right to life. She argues that fetuses are not persons because they lack the basic qualifying traits of personhood or moral humanity. She also believes that the rights of actual persons will always override the rights of potential persons and that there should be no restrictions on when an abortion must occur by. Her argument is a direct response to Noonan’s thesis which is that fetuses are humans and therefore have human rights.

Mary Anne Warren argues in the position that abortion is morally permissible because the fetus is not a person therefore has no rights and not considered immoral to be killed. I shall argue that Warren’s argument in invalid since the claims of argument cannot be proven.

Warren, Thomson, and Hursthouse would agree that Sister McBride and St Joseph’s Hospital were correct in prescribing and performing the abortion. All three authors have varying views on abortion itself, but all held the common view that if the fetus is killing the mother it can be morally aborted. Warren specifically believes that a fetus is not a person and therefore does not have rights equal to a person, if it has rights at all. This belief allows a mother to undergo an abortion whenever she pleases because she is the only one with rights. Although Thomson agrees with Warren she states that a fetus is a person. She comes to the same conclusion as Warren though, that an abortion can be performed whenever, with a somewhat similar thought

Marry Anne Warren and Don Marquis present arguments in favor of and in opposition to the moral permissibility of aborting a pregnancy. Both raise important points, but I am not fully convinced by either argument. Warren proposes a justification for allowing abortion based on the idea of a moral community. According to this view, moral agents have an exclusive or at least preferential obligation to those entities that meet the criteria for membership in the moral community, and their rights should never be violated for the sake of an entity that is not a member. The criterion Warren chooses is personhood, which entails one or more of the characteristics of sentience, communication, reason, emotion, and so on. The essential point of Warren’s

Whether or not abortion is permissible has held controversy for several years. Many people believe it is impermissible to have an abortion because the fetus is a person, therefore, it is murder. Judith Thomson proposes that abortion is permissible. With both sides, there comes several different objections. I will argue against Thomson’s argument that abortion is permissible and show that it is, in fact, impermissible.

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.

“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).

The following essay will examine the morality of abortion with specific reference to the writings of Don Marquis, Judith Jarvis Thompson, Peter Singer and Mary Anne Warren. I will begin by assessing the strength of the argument provided by Marquis which claims that abortion is impermissible because it deprives a being of a potential “future like ours,” and then go on to consider the writings of Singer, Thomson and Warren to both refute Marquis claims and support my assertion that abortion is morally permissible primarily because of the threat to the freedom and bodily autonomy of women extending the right to life to a foetus in utero would pose.