Ooh, how fun! I want to be a teacher, you see. Essays are fun to examine.
I'm getting sick of these abortion topics sprouting up every single day. We've all explained our positions dozens of times that I think we should all have a pre-prepared document ready to post, so that's exactly what I'm going to provide. A paper I did on this very issue in PHL 201 last year at my university. Have fun!
The Abortion Issue
The abortion issue is one of great controversy in today's society. It is something that has been a key moral and political issue for years and continues to find its way into the limelight. The two major stances are those of pro-choice and pro-life. For the most part, people on the pro-choice side argue that a fetus is not yet a person (in a moral sense) and as such does not have the full rights of one. They also believe that a woman's rights and liberty allows her to have the freedom to choose to have an abortion if she sees fit. On the other hand, the pro-life people argue that a fetus is a person and has the same rights as someone who is born. This would mean that killing a fetus would be equal to murder, and because you wouldn't kill a born person, you also wouldn't kill a fetus as well. The two philosophers I've studied on the issue of abortion are Mary Ann Warren (pro-choice)1 and John T. Noonan (pro-life)2. For the sake of argument, I'm going to take the side of Warren in saying that a fetus does not meet the criteria of being a human in the moral sense and as such does not share any moral rights of one.
To decide whether or not a fetus is a human, you must first define what makes up being a human. Noonan takes the genetic approach of defining what a human is by saying, "A being with a human genetic code is a man." I find problems in this definition because I find it too simplistic and lends itself easily to reductio ad absurdum. For instance, in my finger I have full human genetic code but I wouldn't consider my finger a human being.
The cells in your finger do not have the potential to be a human, whereas an embryo does. If Noonan's genetic example stands alone, then your argument is valid; however, when combined with the argument from potential, your counter-argument is meaningless and a borderline strawman.
Noonan needs to provide more criteria for the definition of a human being than just the genetic sense.
Why? After all, a species is defined by its genes. We call a bird a bird because it has the genetic makeup of a bird. The only thing separating mentally deficient humans from most apes is our slight difference in genetics.
On the other hand, Warren attempts to define humanity in a more moral sense.
One of the mantras of the pro-choice movement against the pro-life movement is not forcing your morality on others. This mantra is exercised whenever a pro-lifer argues that it is morally wrong to kill a fetus. So if morals aren't allowed, we must stick to a scientific approach. But then, science greatly favors the pro-life position that fetuses are human, as fetuses have human DNA and are members of homo sapiens. So which is it?
She provides five criteria for humanity
And why should these criteria be accepted? What makes her an authority on who is and who is not a human? If she were to (hypothetically) define a black person to not be human, and then outline five criteriafor what is human that conveniently excludes black people, would she be correct? Would her criteria even matter? Would people be asking "What gives her the right to define human life?"? Would they be justified in asking?
: "Consciousness (of objects and events external and/or internal to the being),
Fetuses have been reported of trying to escape the tools used by abortionists and can feel pain.
reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems),
Young children (between the ages of 0 and 2) do not meet this criteria, therefore, as they are considered human, I see no good reason to regard this criteria as valid.
self-motivated activity (activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control),
It is debatable as to whether or not such a thing exists. In addition, young children (between the ages of 0 and 10 and up) do not meet this criteria.
the capacity to communicate,
People are born with speech disorders. People who are deaf cannot speak well. Comatose men and women cannot communicate.
and self-awareness."
Not achieved until the baby reaches age 1.
This definition is not without its problems however, and Warren does admit it is somewhat flawed.She goes on to say that a person doesn't have to necessarily meet all the criteria, but to meet none of the criteria would definitely make you not a person.
Fetuses meet the second criteria.
I think the main problem with her criteria is that a newborn child doesn't meet her criteria. I do however agree with the concept of her definition of humanity in the sense that we need a more "moral sense" definition of being human rather than just a hard genetic definition like the one that Noonan gave. Humans are the most sophisticated of all the creatures on the planet and I think that just having human genetic code isn't enough for a good, stable definition.
Again, explain why.
The main issue at stake here is deciding whether a fetus is human or not. Knowing both Noonan's and Warren's definitions of being human it's quite obvious to see that taking Noonan's definition, a fetus is human and with Warren's definition a fetus is not human.
Even though fetuses meet Warren's second criteria: consciousness.
As I stated earlier, for the sake of argument I'm going to agree with Warren's definition of humanity and stance on a fetus not being human. A lot of people on the pro-life side say that you become a human at the point of conception. I find it ridiculous to believe an embryo and a living born person share the same rights.
I find it inhumane that people would kill other people because they find their view of being people ridiculous.
The two are so far apart and you can't just look at the genetics.
Again, why? Just waving it off does not an argument make. You've also moved the goalpost with this paragraph: in the previous paragraphs you were speaking of fetuses, but now you have abruptly switched to embryos.
A large part of being human are things like consciousness, reasoning, and self awareness.
According to Dr. Warren, of course.
But what about the potential for humanity? Undoubtedly a fetus will eventually turn into a human so shouldn't we preserve that potential? Well, sperm and ovums are also potential humans and there isn't much of a battle to preserve those.
Because they have no potential to be a human. A sperm, when mixed with an egg, ceases to be a sperm and thus has no potential to be a human. Same with an ovum.
Sperm is killed through the use of contraception and masturbation and ovums are frequently destroyed naturally by ovulation.
Masturbation and ovulation are perfectly natural. Abortion is not.
I think that just having potential for humanity doesn't constitute a good reason to get rid of abortion.A potential human's rights should not be held higher than the rights of a fully human woman.
A fully human woman does not have the right to kill another human, "fully human" or not.
So, does a fetus have a right to life? According to Noonan and others on the pro-life side that answer would be yes, simply through this argument, "It is wrong to kill innocent human beings, and fetuses are innocent human beings, then it is wrong to kill fetuses." All this is really doing is begging the question. If you assume the moral definition of human is being used, saying fetuses are human beings begs the question by assuming fetuses are in fact humans in the moral sense. If you assume the genetic definition of human is being used, saying it is wrong to kill human beings begs the question by assuming it is wrong to kill something that possesses human genetic code.
The genetic code AND the human potential. Don't forget that.
Of course, you can't use both definitions because you would be guilty of equivocation.
Why's that?
Of course, siding with Warren, you can conclude that because a fetus is not a person it doesn't share the same moral rights as one and if right to life is a moral human right, a fetus doesn't have that right.
If rights are simply moral then abortion should be extremely illegal.
And as I stated earlier, a fetus does have a potential for humanity, but just having potential doesn't grant you full human rights.
It should at least grant you the single most fundamental right, the one from which all others stem: The Inalienable Right to Life.
My personal stance on the entire issue
And that's where no reply from me is necessary.
jazznate
Log in to comment