Mary Anne Warren's Argument For Abortion

Mary Anne Warren presents her argument for abortion, first, by replying to Thomson’s argument with falsehoods she gathered from his premises. The largest opposition Warren had with Thompson, was based upon the statement he made that allowed for abortion to be permissible even if the fetus has a full right to life. Warren argues that there cannot be an argument for abortion if it is believed that a fetus has a full right to life, because an abortion would immediately dismiss this. In Warren’s argument, she focuses heavily on defining personhood and the moral status that coincides with it, and the lack of both in a fetus. I am going to argue on behalf of Warren, however adding the argument that a fetus does not have full moral status, while an infant does, in hopes to respond to the issue of infanticide. Warren introduces a frequent argument in favor of abortion that states, making abortion illegal is a violation of the mother’s rights, and her body is her property (Page 1). She dismisses this argument because the mere property rights to a women’s body, is not a strong enough claim for killing a fetus. If perhaps a child was sitting on your lawn, the idea that they are on your property, is not a go ahead to take their life. …show more content…
I think that Warren needs to stress the claim that while both a fetus and infant are not persons, by her definition of personhood, a fetus’s rights are completely dependent on the mother, in contrast to an infant. While a fetus is inside of the mother, a fetus is not a part of the moral community, and all the mother’s rights outweigh the fetus’s. The fetus’s right to life is overridden by the mothers right to her body because she has full moral status, while the fetus does not. An infant however, no longer is dependent on their mother’s rights, since it’s not using her body to