The abortion debate can take on many views and one’s perspective essentially depends upon the individualistic morals and beliefs of that person. Much argument revolves around whether the unborn is a human life or not and if it is – how much value it possess, in more exceptional cases whether abortion can be justified or if this then makes it O.K. to apply the same criteria to exceptional cases of killing the severely ill, comatose, etc. In this paper, I am going to prove to be true the position: the unborn is in fact a human life which the killing of is permissible since it is not a person; thus, its value does not override the value of a women’s freedom. A position consistent with the views of Marry Anne Warren and discounting the notion’s of Philip Devine and the ‘moderate feminist position’.
Opposing this position, Devine supports the view that it is not right to kill the unborn human life since its value as a person overrides the value of the women’s freedom. In short what Devine says is that we are all members of a human species, including infants because in time infants will come to love, talk and think just as we do. Therefore, since infants and others are protected against homicide, based on the two previous facts, the same must also “be true of fetuses, embryos, and zygotes” (Devine, 239). What he means is that because babies turn into people (members of the human species) and the law protects them from homicide, so too should fetuses because they turn into babies. Devine also rejects the ‘moderate feminist position’ which he says claims for the woman to have an unlimited right to abort. He does so for three reasons: 1. he recalls evidence that women have requested abortions because the child was not the sex they wanted, 2. he says that in places where tolerance of abortion prevails the birth rate is lower than the abortion rate in some cases, and 3. he says:
There is a connection between the concept of a right and the maxim that no one shall be judge in his own cause.
Meaning, a woman should not have the right to choose whether to abort when it is her own situation because she is less likely to be a ‘rational being’ and prejudice may come into play in the context of sex, etc.
Warren does not deny the fact that a fetus is a human being and she does not deny the potential of a fetus to love and think – she says though that this potential does not give the fetus enough right to deny the woman her ‘moral and constitutional rights’ (rights to protection, happiness, freedom, etc.), however. Rather she contends that a fetus is not a ‘person’ and therefore it is permissible to kill the fetus. She disallows the ‘person’ status because she says a fetus “cannot be considered a member of a moral community” (Warren, 250). In order to be a member of this ‘moral community’, Warren states you must demonstrate (at least) some of the following: consciousness and feeling of pain, the ability to reason in somewhat of a complex way, participation in self-motivated activities, the “capacity to communicate”(Warren, 255) in many different ways, and the understanding of self-concepts/self-awareness. She goes on to point out it is not that the fetus has no value at all. In the case of a woman who is a member of this ‘moral community’ and has ‘person’ status and a fetus, that does not have ‘person’ status, the value of the woman and her choice overrides the value of the fetus – in all cases. Warren also states that abortion is not a ‘morally serious’ but justified act (one like killing someone in self-defense), instead is a “morally neutral act, like cutting one’s hair” (Warren, 253).
Warren’s position does leave some holes. On her assertion that abortion is merely the same as cutting your hair, Devine would accuse this stance of ‘crudity’ and even I can admit that a fetus holds more value than one’s hair. More importantly, though is the fact that according to the initial stance presented here of Warren, one could be led to believe that the permissibility of infanticide was also O.K. based upon the reasoning used for abortion. If you recall, in order to be a ‘person’ and thus, a member of our ‘moral community’ you must have at least attributes (1) and (2) of the traits listed earlier (if you satisfy none of the (1)-(5) you definitely would not qualify), Warren says. So it would appear to be also justifiable to kill a newborn infant as they too could not adequately justify what is required to be a member of our ‘moral community’ and have a ‘personhood’. Warren responds with two reasons why this is not true. First, it would not be right because in our country there will always be people who would like to have a baby and cannot on their own for whatever reasons. Second, even if there was no one to take the newborn right at that moment we value infants in a way that we would rather chip in to support an orphanage than see the baby destroyed.
Now, the next opposition in this circle of debate will be that this ruling out of infanticide also makes abortion wrong because there are people willing to take that fetus once it is born and if not there are people who value them enough to support their preservation. Again, I agree with Warren’s defense that different from infanticide, in the case of an unborn fetus, keeping the fetus against the wishes of the woman “violates her rights to freedom, happiness, and self-determination” (Warren, 260). In addition, it is only logical to see that the rights of the pregnant woman should take precedence over those of the person who wants the fetus protected. Warren makes a good point here when she says this situation is similar to a situation where an animal attacks a person, their rights to protect themselves and harm the animal take precedence over the rights of those who want the animal preserved. This right holds true until the baby is born, at which point the infant’s preservation would no longer violate the mother in any way – she can no longer decide whether to preserve or destroy the baby now. The same holds true for end-of-life situations, in which someone might be severely ill, in a coma, or some other parallel situation – this is not the same as abortion.
Then there is the case in which the woman is not responsible for a pregnancy, like in cases of rape. This is a unique circumstance, indeed, but I present it because I think it provides a situation in which almost everyone would sway on the side of Pro-Choice. In most (I’m not saying all) cases of this I do not see how a rational being could justify telling a woman she has to keep a baby she received as a result of being raped – so we will leave it at that.
The debate can go back and forth forever, but I think essentially each person has his or her own moral beliefs and values. They justify the position they take based on those beliefs and on the thoughts of thinkers who share views along the same lines. If you could not tell, I am Pro-Choice and I was before I ever really sat down and thought about what or why I was. Looking at someone like Warren, I find myself saying, “Yeah I believe that same thing” or “yeah I incorporate that same moral”. To the contrary, I read someone like Devine and I can see where he is coming from and the point he is making, but for reasons I do not know I just do not agree with the views he is backing. Therefore, it is natural for me to be bias on the side of Warren, but I think it is easy to see above what Warren is saying and how it discounts Devine’s arguments while answering its opposition’s questions. Proving to be true, my original statement: that the unborn is a human life which the killing of is permissible since it is not a person and so its value does not override the value of the woman’s freedom.
