Analysis Of Mary Anne Warren's Permissibility Of Abortion

In her piece, Mary Anne Warren argues the permissibility of abortion by holding that moral disagreement to abortion is founded on the following argument:1. It is wrong to kill innocent human beings. 2. The fetus is an innocent human being. 3. Hence it is wrong to kill the fetus (432). To Warren, ‘human being’ is used in different contexts thinks that 'human being' is used in two different senses in both argument 1. and 2. In argument 1, 'human being' is being used in a moral connotation to mean a 'person' or 'true member of the moral community'. In (2), 'human being' means 'biological human'. That the fetus is a biological human organism Warren holds. But it does not mean that the fetus is a person, and it is persons with rights, essentially,
Her second premise is that humans have an obligation to not waste; we should use all our resources, labors, or skills so that they can aid in our satisfaction (695). Warren’s third premise comes from Kantian moral theory: we should treat people as ends and not means (695). Her final premise is that we as individuals should be the ones to enforce the other premises (695). All things considered, there is a potential flaw in Warren’s third premise. He claims that we should (695). However, in her argument, Warren didn’t clearly define what a person is. For example, In fact, some dolphins are even self-aware enough to recognize th Seeing as how there are many similarities between humans and personhood. It is possible that Kant’s moral theory doesn’t have to end in an abortion. All things considered, Warren could counter argue and claim that a person is a being that has two legs, two arms, opposable thumbs, and is both sentient and rational which would strengthen her argument. Although, there are other beings who possess these characteristics, and some humans who