Tooley sets arguments that dismisses the anti-abortion status. He asks if the fetus is not at all human than why is it wrong to terminate it? (26) He claims that in order for anyone to have the right to life then they must want life. Tooley also thinks that infants whom don’t have the capability to desire anything yet don’t have the right to live. With that said it would be morally permissible for abortions and infanticide to occur.
Tooley continues his argument when he compares a fetus to kittens. He believes that kittens do not have any significant right to life and to kill them would be morally tolerated. However if this same kitten was being tortured then it would be entirely wrong, if teased it would be suffering. When comparing a kitten to a human adult it would be clear that the human would choice torture of killing because they are aware of the consequences of death. So that is what makes an adult different from a fetus the concept of life and desires. The reason Tooley compares kittens to fetuses is because he believes they both lack the concept of life.
I wondered how anyone could compare a fetus to an infant when it comes to terminating their lives. Tooley believes that the only thing that separates an infant from a fetus is the fact that they are outside of the womb. He believes that if an infants life is taken shortly after birth and in a painless way then it is morally acceptable. (37)
Tooley’s argument is far to restricted and does not account for others...