Abortion is one of the most controversial and heated issues in the United States today. There are two different views on this controversy. There are those who are pro-choice, whom believe that woman have the right to choose to have an abortion or not. Then, there are those who are pro-life, whom believe that a fetus should have right to life. Marry Warren, the author of “Abortion is Morally Permissible”, falls under the category of being pro-choice. She believes any law that stops woman from aborting, violates on woman basic moral rights to have control over ones own body. Warren’s staple claim is that the unborn are not human because the fetus doesn’t meet the requirements of personhood. In arguing her point as she does, the article is filled with logical issues. I will argue below that Warren’s assumptions are not strong enough to support her claim that woman should have the choice to have an abortion. In the first section, Warren defines human, which was not as simple for Warren as it is for most people.
…show more content…
She believed there were two definitions of a human even though the difference might not always be distinct. Because of this, she argues the following common pro-life argument must be fallacious, (1) it is wrong to kill innocent human beings. (2) Fetuses are innocent human beings. (3) So, it is wrong to kill a fetus. The reason why she believes this argument is fallacious is because “human” is used in (1) and (2), so one of them must be question begging. And if human does have two definitions, then the conclusion would not follow. In the second section, Warren suggests a new definition of a moral community because she doesn’t agree with the definition. The new definition is that a moral community consists of all and only people, rather than all and only humans. This brings her to her next claim of what makes one a person. According to Warren all you need to do is meet the 5 basic traits, which is consciousness, reasoning, self motivated activity, the capacity to communicate, and the presence of self-awareness. To be a person you don’t actually need all 5 traits, but if you have none then you are definitely not a person. Along with being considered a person, they are also granted full moral rights. In the third section, Warren discusses fetal development and the right to life, but complications arise. How far advanced since conception does a human need to be before they have the right to life by virtue? To what extent does the fact a fetus having the potential to become a person give it rights? While answering the first question she explains that the more person like one is, the right to life increases. Warren states a fetus has human features, detectable brain activity; but it is still not a person. This brings her to her point that even a fully developed fetus isn’t conscious and if the right to a fetus’s life is based upon the similarity to a person, than it should never overpower woman’s right to obtain an abortion. She acknowledges other arguments in favor of legal limits on the stage which abortion may be performed. One of her examples is the fact that relative safety of the new technique s of artificially inducing labor in third trimester, the danger to woman’s health is no longer an argument. She believes those arguments could be fixed by informing people about the moral distinctions, which we are making here by limiting access to abortion. …show more content…
The logical fallacy she commits is begging the question. However this is wrong because a premise can’t beg the question. A person can only beg a question if they assume the conclusion in one of the premises. One premise has to be question begging because premise one can only be self evident if human was meant in the moral sense; while premise 2 isn’t question begging, if you meant it in the genetic sense. Because of this, she is just meaning that the argument is deceiving. However, this pro-life argument is not deceiving because all of the premises support the conclusion. Warren has just assumed that the moral sense was not applied to the second premise, when she shouldn’t
She believed there were two definitions of a human even though the difference might not always be distinct. Because of this, she argues the following common pro-life argument must be fallacious, (1) it is wrong to kill innocent human beings. (2) Fetuses are innocent human beings. (3) So, it is wrong to kill a fetus. The reason why she believes this argument is fallacious is because “human” is used in (1) and (2), so one of them must be question begging. And if human does have two definitions, then the conclusion would not follow. In the second section, Warren suggests a new definition of a moral community because she doesn’t agree with the definition. The new definition is that a moral community consists of all and only people, rather than all and only humans. This brings her to her next claim of what makes one a person. According to Warren all you need to do is meet the 5 basic traits, which is consciousness, reasoning, self motivated activity, the capacity to communicate, and the presence of self-awareness. To be a person you don’t actually need all 5 traits, but if you have none then you are definitely not a person. Along with being considered a person, they are also granted full moral rights. In the third section, Warren discusses fetal development and the right to life, but complications arise. How far advanced since conception does a human need to be before they have the right to life by virtue? To what extent does the fact a fetus having the potential to become a person give it rights? While answering the first question she explains that the more person like one is, the right to life increases. Warren states a fetus has human features, detectable brain activity; but it is still not a person. This brings her to her point that even a fully developed fetus isn’t conscious and if the right to a fetus’s life is based upon the similarity to a person, than it should never overpower woman’s right to obtain an abortion. She acknowledges other arguments in favor of legal limits on the stage which abortion may be performed. One of her examples is the fact that relative safety of the new technique s of artificially inducing labor in third trimester, the danger to woman’s health is no longer an argument. She believes those arguments could be fixed by informing people about the moral distinctions, which we are making here by limiting access to abortion. …show more content…
The logical fallacy she commits is begging the question. However this is wrong because a premise can’t beg the question. A person can only beg a question if they assume the conclusion in one of the premises. One premise has to be question begging because premise one can only be self evident if human was meant in the moral sense; while premise 2 isn’t question begging, if you meant it in the genetic sense. Because of this, she is just meaning that the argument is deceiving. However, this pro-life argument is not deceiving because all of the premises support the conclusion. Warren has just assumed that the moral sense was not applied to the second premise, when she shouldn’t