Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to expand the readers’ awareness about the philosophical and ethical principles that may be associated with abortion. With that, the topic that will be discussed in this paper is abortion. Abortion can be defined as the process of ending a pregnancy. It is important to note, however, that an abortion can happen intentionally or unintentionally. Unintentional abortion typically occurs naturally. Examples would be when there are birth defects that have been found during pregnancy; this is otherwise known as spontaneous abortion or simply a miscarriage. Intentional abortion, on the other hand, is done manually, often through surgery; this is otherwise known as induced abortion. The topic of abortion has long been a source of debates in the academic, philosophical, and judicial sense. Because of the long history of the topic as a source of debate, numerous literatures have already been published about it. The goal of this paper is to analyze a preselected set of articles about abortion, present each of these articles’ key findings, and select the one that has the most logical and sensible argument and data presentation about abortion. The thesis statement of this essay suggests that and supports Warren’s argument that abortion should be considered moral and legal because fetuses are not human beings.
There are two key arguments that have been used to determine the logicality and sensibility of academic works that have been published about abortion. The first argument states that any process that leads to the killing of an innocent person can be considered morally wrong. The second argument states that an unborn person is innocent and is therefore unable to give consent about life and death-related decisions during the moment of conception. The combination of these two arguments point to the idea that abortion is morally wrong.
There were two articles that the author of this paper reviewed in relation to abortion and the two key premises that were just presented. The first of which is entitled On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion and is authored by Mary Anne Warren. The second one is the one entitled Why Abortion is Immoral and is authored by Don Marquis. Warren basically supports the idea that abortion should have an established moral and legal status in society; Marquis, on the other hand, centers on the presentation of ideas that support the demonization of abortion as something that is immoral.
Explanation of Position 1 – On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion
Warren’s view is that abortion should be considered both moral and legal. Interestingly, she used a holistic approach in supporting her main claim. She described how each of the variables involved in the determination of the moral and legal status of abortion should be defined in order for people, especially experts in their own fields, who would participate in the scrutiny of the idea would come from the same springboard of knowledge. For example, she asked the questions “how are we to define the moral community, the set of beings with full and equal moral rights, such that we can decide whether a human fetus is a member of this community or not? What entity, exactly has the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?” . Her strategy involved taking the question on whether abortion should be considered moral and legal piece by piece, and determined the answer based on that form of assessment.
Perhaps the most important anchor of her argument is the definition of the term human. The reality is that this term has numerous distinct definitions, which is why it can be confusing for people in the philosophical and judicial fields to come up with a unifying decree about issues like abortion. In those distinct definitions, Warren argued that the term human (i.e. human being) refers to someone who is a full-fledged member of the moral community. This then leads to the question on whether an unborn person or a fetus in this case can be considered as a full-fledged member of the moral community. At some point, it may be right to consider an unborn fetus as a member of the moral community but to consider it as a full-pledged one would be a fallacy.
Another idea about the definition of humanity that was presented in Warren’s part in Vaughn’s book suggests that a human may also be considered a human if he has a full genetic code and has the capacity for rational thought. Fetuses, no matter how one looks at and analyzes them, fail to satisfy these two additional criteria. It would be safe to suggest, based on these two definitions that fetuses are not human both in the moral and legal sense—because they are not full-pledged members of the moral community, do not have a full genetic code, and are not capable of rational thought.
Warren defined the moral community using the concept of personhood or humanity. According to her, the moral community should be composed of the following: consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, communication capacity, and the presence of self-concepts. A member of the moral community should therefore satisfy all of these requirements in order to be considered full-pledged.
On the legal aspect of abortion, on the other hand, a fetus technically does not have the ability to claim that it has the same rights as an already-born human with a fully developed sense of thinking—i.e. it does not have the ability to assert its rights. Therefore, what it (i.e. the fetus) only has, is the potential to be nurtured and be allowed to develop naturally so that it would be able to do the same things that a human, i.e. a legal entity, can do (e.g. assert its rights) in the future. From a purely technical and legal aspect, a potential person or human being is still not a human being. This means that a potential human being is and should not be entitled to have the same rights as an actual human being, hence the idea that abortion should be considered legal.
In summary, Warren’s position about the morality and legality of abortion is based on two question: one, whether a fetus can be considered a formal member of the moral community, which it is not; and two, whether a fetus is entitled to have the same rights as an actual human being, which it also is not. Because of how the results of her analysis turned out in both cases, it would be safe to suggest that a fetus is not a human being therefore the traditional premises about abortion that were described earlier in the introduction would not be applicable any longer.
Explanation of Position 2 – Why Abortion is Immoral
Marquis’ essay’s objective was to explain why an overwhelming majority of the deliberate abortions are immoral. One argument that he pointed out is also being used by a good number of anti-abortionist is that life is already present from the moment of conception or the early development of a fetus. By virtue, then, killing a fetus, is morally similar to murder. He then presented the most likely argument that a pro-choicer (i.e. pro-abortionist) would raise; specifically, the one that suggests that fetuses may not be legally and morally considered as a human being because of how they fail to satisfy the established definitions for a human being within the realm of law and philosophy. Marquis described this as the typical standoff that prevents the two sides (pro and anti-abortionists) to clearly settle their dispute, one that has long existed and one that still exists even today. He also recognized the fact that the pro and anti-abortion claims can be both true. The real question, however, is how the standoff between these two sides can be resolved.
The standard approach, according to Marquis, was to show the principles on which the pro and anti-abortionist sides are based in an effort to make the other side lose the plausibility of its analysis. For example, pro-abortionists would most likely defend their position by saying that abortion is not killing. On the other hand, anti-abortionists would do the same by showing facts that support the idea that abortion is akin to murder. The standard approach, in this case, only leads to a standoff and does not progress into something more substantial altogether. The creation of a standoff, according to Marquis, is due to the use of broad principles. “The problem with broad principles is that they often embrace too much” . This means that the principles that the two sides’ respective argument is based on are too broad that they become unacceptable and unreasonable for the other side to bear, hence the standoff.
Marquis proposed the use of an idea called commonsense personhood which is basically using a set of characteristics to define whether a fetus can be classified as a human being. Basically, a human being is an entity who has rights, duties, emotions, identities, consciousness, reason, and so on. He, however, noted that these traits and their existence are not implausible and are, ideally, meant to be used as guidelines in settling the disputes between the pro and anti-abortionists.
It can be seen that as Marquis’ discussion progressed, he adopted the idea that fetuses are humans. He proceeded to explain that the morality of abortion should be determined by the answer to the question on whether it is wrong to kill ourselves to which the answer of course is a no. He also explained that the current standoff between pro and anti-abortionists is solvable but ultimately, fetuses should be treated as humans (i.e. our own) and should not be summarily or arbitrarily executed because that would be equal to killing a live, conscious human being, which is what makes abortion immoral .
Comparison and Contrast of the 2 Positions
Common Themes
Stylistic or Historical Differences
They both referred to the idea that whether or not abortion is moral and legal (in some cases) depends on the determination of the fetus’ status as a human being. One particular person whose work was mentioned in the two essays was John T. Noonan. In the two essays, the significance of Noonan’s work was how he established the importance of defining what the significance of a fetus is and how a human being should be defined because depending on the answer to this question, the morality and legality of abortion can be determined.
Different words and Meanings
Although the two essays have an essentially the same stylistic and historical significance in that they both referred to the clearing of the definition of a fetus and a human being, they still resorted to their own word and meaning of such terms. Marquis proceed by still considering a fetus as a human being. In contrast, Warren proceeded her discussion by not considering a fetus a human being. This is the main reason why their respective thesis statement is not the same.
Comparison of Conclusions
Clearly, the respective conclusions of the Warren and Marquis’ essays were different. Warren concluded that abortion should be considered moral and legal because killing a fetus is not akin to killing a human being. Marquis, on the other hand, concluded that abortion is immoral because a fetus is arguably a human being and so killing one of the former would be equal to killing a human being.
Key (Chosen) Position
The position that the author of this essay chose to support or agree with was that of Warren. The main idea behind Warren’s position is that abortion should be considered moral and legal because killing a fetus is not akin to killing a human being.
What makes this position so agreeable is the way how Warren explained her points. She did so piece by piece. First, she defined, based on her own sources, what a human being is, both from a moral and legal perspective. She then proceeded by examining whether the existing and most acceptable definition of a fetus satisfies the definitions of a human being that were used. It was found out that a fetus is not a human being both morally and legally, and so her conclusion that abortion is and should be considered moral and legal was only sensible.
Criticism of the Position
The other position that the author of this paper decided to turn away from was that of Marquis which basically suggests that abortion is immoral because a fetus is arguably a human being and so killing one of the former would be equal to killing a human being. How can Warren say that her position about the morality and legality of abortion is the one that should be followed when it is pretty clear that our definitions and arguments are based on a good number of similar stylistic and historical themes. For example, she also used Noonan’s work about the definition of a human being and its importance in settling the issue about the morality and legality of abortion. Still, Warren and Marquis ended up having an essentially opposite conclusion about abortion. Would it be safe to say then, as a point of criticism, that Warren’s conclusions were also based on her own personal bias against anti-abortionist ideas?
Re-Defend the Position
Again, to redefend the chosen position between the two essays about abortion (that of Warren), its main selling point is the way how Warren explained her points. She did so piece by piece. First, she defined, based on her own sources, what a human being is, both from a moral and legal perspective. She then proceeded by examining whether the existing and most acceptable definitions of a fetus satisfy the definitions of a human being that were used. These qualities were not present in Marquis’ methodology.
Conclusions
The purpose of this paper was to compare two key articles about abortion. The main philosophical question here is whether abortion should be considered legal and moral, based on the existing discourse among the authors of literatures. The position that the author of this essay decided to support was that of Warren, the one that states that abortion should be considered moral and legal.
In the end, whether abortion should be legalized and considered moral is an issue that will remain debatable (which makes this a future problem too). Marquis was right about one thing—that the existing dispute may remain a dispute for a very long time because of how broadly encompassing the existing policies are. The goal for future researchers and analysts then (based on the outcomes of these two essays) is to find a common ground, one that is ideally more narrowed down (i.e. not broadly encompassing) so that the morality and legality of abortion can be settled once and for all.
My personal argument about abortion’s morality and legality, however, is that it should not be based on definitions. I think ideas about abortion is something that is as sensitive as the topics about politics and religions are. In this case, the goal should not be to settle the dispute once and for all but to let the dispute just sit there and to introduce the idea that people should instead learn how to agree to disagree on matters that evidently cannot be settled using any standardized means, a perfect case in point would be the current argument about abortion. What makes this argument better is that it does not beg for a resolution because it assumes that there is nothing to resolve because people from each side of the argument will never yield to the others from the opposite side.
Works Cited
Marquis, Don. "Why Abortion is Immoral." Great Philosophical Arguments: An Introduction to Philosophy (2011): Print. 540. Feb 2017.
Warren, Mary. "On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion." Great Philosophical Arguments: An Introduction to Philosophy (2011): Print. 553. Feb 2017.
