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
…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 …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 …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