On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion
On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion Mary Anne Warren’s argument that “because women are persons and fetuses are not, women’s rights override whatever right to life a fetus may possess” because of the characteristics of personhood and moral community that a fetus does not yet have (Warren 164) is shown through the following argument:
1) If unwanted and dangerous pregnancies occur, woman should morally and justifiably have the right without any restrictions to have an abortion.
2) Unwanted and dangerous pregnancies occur.
3) Therefore, women should be allowed to have abortions without any restrictions by the law.
This argument is sound because the premises match up and they are supported by all of the facts and details she writes about. Abortion is the act of a women deliberately ending her pregnancy before it came time to give birth; causing a fetus to die (Warren 164). In this paper I will be arguing for the first premise in the argument stated above. Warren attempts to justify the first premise through multiple examples. She agrees with Thompson’s argument that no one has the duty to keep another human alive if it is going to have a considerable personal cost unless the person has an obligation toward the individual (like a close family member). She ties Thompson’s statement into her own argument by showing that a woman has no moral obligation towards an unwanted and unborn fetus. Furthermore, in cases of rape or incest, it is completely plausible for a woman to desire an abortion and not have moral obligation to the fetus. She explains that, although some pregnancies occur merely from improper contraceptive use, it is still permissible for abortions to occur on the grounds of when life for a fetus actually begins and truly matters. Warren makes clear that the people in the moral community have all of the rights that a living and active being (like us) have. She argues that there is a clear distinction between a “humanity” and a
1) If unwanted and dangerous pregnancies occur, woman should morally and justifiably have the right without any restrictions to have an abortion.
2) Unwanted and dangerous pregnancies occur.
3) Therefore, women should be allowed to have abortions without any restrictions by the law.
This argument is sound because the premises match up and they are supported by all of the facts and details she writes about. Abortion is the act of a women deliberately ending her pregnancy before it came time to give birth; causing a fetus to die (Warren 164). In this paper I will be arguing for the first premise in the argument stated above. Warren attempts to justify the first premise through multiple examples. She agrees with Thompson’s argument that no one has the duty to keep another human alive if it is going to have a considerable personal cost unless the person has an obligation toward the individual (like a close family member). She ties Thompson’s statement into her own argument by showing that a woman has no moral obligation towards an unwanted and unborn fetus. Furthermore, in cases of rape or incest, it is completely plausible for a woman to desire an abortion and not have moral obligation to the fetus. She explains that, although some pregnancies occur merely from improper contraceptive use, it is still permissible for abortions to occur on the grounds of when life for a fetus actually begins and truly matters. Warren makes clear that the people in the moral community have all of the rights that a living and active being (like us) have. She argues that there is a clear distinction between a “humanity” and a