Overview[ edit ] The philosophical arguments in the abortion debate are deontological or rights-based. The view that all or almost all abortion should be illegal generally rests on the claims:
May 1, One of the most hotly contested issues inside and outside of biomedical ethics today is abortion. Unfortunately, a heated discussion on abortion can easily and quickly turn into a battle of rhetoric rather than a dialectic of reason.
But the guiding light in such a discussion must always be reason, not rhetoric or other fallacies, for only reason can solve this issue and judge which side is correct.
In this brief essay, I shall attempt to clear away some of the confusion present in typical abortion debates by cooling the rhetoric with reason enlightened by scientific facts. Specifically, I will examine two common pro-abortion arguments made by Mary Anne Warren and Judith Jarvis Thomson and demonstrate that they cannot stand up to rational scrutiny and therefore fail to justify abortion.
Before even beginning to discuss the issue of abortion, it is imperative to agree upon a starting point from which to reason. It seems to me, however, that to start with the definition of abortion and an examination of the beings involved would be a fair move.
Abortion is the unnatural termination of a pregnancy by killing at least one human fetus. This definition is not contested, and I think it seems clear that it is correct.
Ergo, the fetus involved is human. Secondly, the fetus is, at least scientifically speaking, a singular and individual organism, as evidenced by his own unique genetic make-up, which he shares with no other human being on earth unless he have an identical twin.
There is thus an essential difference between a human fetus and, say, a tumor or similar parasite. Finally, that the fetus is alive is confirmed through empirical observation, and hence forcing that life to come to an end involves at least some sort of killing.
Therefore, the unavoidable conclusion is that abortion deliberately and forcibly puts to death a human being. Again, this definition is uncontested and thus I shall not dwell on it any further. Rather, I shall now turn to the moral implications necessarily connected with abortion.
The question that arises is as to whether or not abortion is morally justifiable.
It cannot be wrong by definition, since sometimes thereis moral justification for forcibly putting to death another human being, in such cases as self-defense, just war, or capital punishment. The pro-abortion side submits that it is, and different arguments have been put forward to substantiate that claim.
Be that as it may, she asks: It is here that reason ought to make an objection. And what if one thinks that it is totally unacceptable to define personhood in terms of functional abilities at all? But this is surely absurd. Earlier I mentioned that Warren does not give us any justification for embracing a functionalist paradigm as far as personhood is concerned.
This statement needs qualification, however. Warren does mention that the view that personhood is intrinsic to any human being from the first moment of his existence carries with it the problem that it makes the traditional syllogism against abortion  question-begging.
But this is false. It does not make the traditional syllogism any more question-begging than the syllogism that since Socrates is a man and all men are mortal, therefore Socrates is mortal.
Therefore, it should not be surprising that the conclusion of the traditional anti-abortion syllogism follows with relative ease. And this most certainly does not disprove the validity of the syllogism or suggest that it contains a fallacy, and hence the humanity-implies-personhood view is not refuted or infringed upon.
So, what reasons does Warren have to reject the view that humanity implies personhood? So, why does she reject it? In other words, it seems to me that Warren rejects the view that humanity necessarily implies personhood or that being human suffices to have moral rights precisely and only because it would make abortion impermissible.
Of course, not all abortion advocates base their justification of abortion on a lack of personhood on the part of the preborn human. Certainly, such a justification, if valid, would make a much more forceful case for abortion than any attempt to base it on a lack of personhood. This has been done by the Society of Music Lovers and without your permission.Coming from central Europe, the whole abortion being a political issue is a strange one to me, help me understand.
Criticism of Mary Anne Warren’s work (rational conclusions on the question of personhood) must, seeing the clear, rational, pragmatic and scientific argumentation in her work, be irrational and religiously biased.
On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion By Mary Anne Warren. from Biomedical Ethics. 4 th ed. T.A. Mappes and D. DeGrazia, eds.
New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. , pp.
[notes not included] The question which we must answer in order to produce a satisfactory solution to the problem of the moral status of abortion is this: How are we to define the moral community, the set of beings.
Port Manteaux churns out silly new words when you feed it an idea or two. Enter a word (or two) above and you'll get back a bunch of portmanteaux created by jamming together words that are conceptually related to your inputs..
For example, enter "giraffe" and you'll get . Abortion. This article gives an overview of the moral and legal aspects of abortion and evaluates the most important arguments. The central moral aspect concerns whether there is any morally relevant point during the biological process of the development of the fetus from its beginning as a unicellular zygote to birth itself that may justify not having an abortion after that point.
Mary Anne Warren, in her article arguing for the permissibility of abortion, holds that moral opposition to abortion is based on the following argument: It is wrong to kill innocent human beings. The embryo is an innocent human being.
WHY ABORTION IS IMMORAL WHY ABORTION IS IMMORAL T n HE "On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion," The Monist, timberdesignmag.com, 1 () cannot be taken to be a premise in the anti-abortion argument, for it is precisely what needs to be established.
Hence, either the anti-.