After reading many positions on abortion, I have come to the conclusion that a fetus is a person and the right to life of a fetus outweighs that of a woman's right to bodily integrity. Hence, that abortion is immoral. Supporters arguments are that a fetus has no right to life at all based on the belief that is does not meet a set of criteria for personhood. Therefore, a woman may choose to abort at anytime during her pregnancy. Some may say that a woman's right to bodily integrity outweighs a fetus' right to life. I wish to expose the fallibility of these arguments.
Warren argues that a fetus has no substantial right to life on the basis that it is not a person. She bases this belief off of a set of criteria that suggests that these components are most crucial to the acceptance of personhood.
WARREN SCHILLINGS
WARREN SCHILLINGS
WARREN SCHILLINGSWarren's criteria are "consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, the capacity to communicate, and the presence of self-concepts and self-awareness" (Warren p16). This set of criteria works off the belief that any being that does not meet one of the five criteria is not a person. Warren believes that to have none of the five criteria eliminates that being from classification of a person. I believe this argument may not be plausible on the grounds that a fetus can satisfy one of these criteria.
A fetus is conscious while in the womb. The fetus also has the ability to communicate. If an expectant mother does something that the fetus does not like it has the ability to communicate this by moving or kicking. It is responsive to pain, sound, and touch. The fetus has the ability to have consciousness to feel the pain and communicate that feeling through its movement. The fetus'...
Abortion
This is a well-written essay which was an extremely interesting read. I also thought that your arguments were fresh, new, and thus very convincing. I disagree however, and would like to point out that women who engage in sexual intercourse do not know that it may lead to pregnancy. Contraception fails frequently, when women often do not know that it is not 100% effective. This happened to me (if I had known I would always have used two methods of contraception - a precaution that I always take now). When contraception fails it is certainly not the women's choice or fault that she has fallen pregnant. What if, for example, she does not want to have children until she is thirty years of age, or older? Should she abstain completely from sex until then? Is that practical or realistic? I do not think abstaining from sex until you are ready to have children is a reasonable expectation to make of women, particularly if the women is in a steady long-term relationship.
I also think, contrary to yourself, that since the baby is part of the women and is not an entity on its own, it belongs entirely to the women (in the same way that her own body does) and it is thus entirely the women's choice to do with the baby as she wishes. If she makes an immoral choice then it is HER choice, and she will deal with the consequences, emotionally in this world, and possibly if there is another world, then in the next too. Since the baby is part of the mothers body, the state cannot then force her to give up her rights to her body and force her to have it.
Sorry for the rant! Excellent essay though! Well done!
6 out of 6 people found this comment useful.