Paper Sample on Exploring Warren's Abortion Argument: A Fetus's Right to Life

Introduction

The ethics of abortion has been a controversial topic of discussion over the past years and probably years to come. Thus, understanding what abortion means is paramount to the discussion. Abortion refers to the destruction of unborn children or fetuses while they are still in the womb of their mothers (Vaughn 384). Anyone from the mother herself can do an abortion to backstreet abortions and even to the health clinic, which is set up purposefully for abortion. There are two sides to abortion, pro-life for persons who are against the practice and pro-choice, the persons who believe that it is the woman’s right to choose if the fetus lives or she lives. Thus, the paper will evaluate the perspective of abortion from Warren’s argument that a fetus is not a person and has no right to life that would overshadow the right of a woman to control her body.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Premises of the Argument

Warren supports a tremendously liberal perspective on abortion, which is ethically bearable at any pregnancy stage and also under any situation. Warren deliberates some of the anti-abortion perspectives; it is erroneous to destroy human beings who are blameless; then, fetuses are creatures who are blameless; therefore, it is erroneous to kill fetuses. However, the acceptability of the premises revitalized on a prevarication on the term beings. From a genetic perspective, humans are defined as being members of a biological class called Homo sapiens. From a moral perspective, beings are well-defined as fully-fledged members of a moral community. Thus, Warren concludes, the ethical community represents a conventional of organisms with complete ethical rights and entails entirely and merely persons. If the beings can be perceived from the perspective that the premise gives, then one of them begs the question (Molefe, Motsamai 70). Whichever the argument believes that it is erroneous to terminate the life of something because of the virtual of being a homo sapiens or the argument believes that the fetus to be a moral community associate. Both of the two claims are contentious and supportive reasoning behind each ought to be advanced critically.

Premise Support to Conclusions

Just because someone or something does not qualify to be a person, it does not mean that it is not erroneous to kill them. If the fetus is not people, they are prospective persons, and clearly, potential persons are merely never actual persons, according to Warren. Thus, does the potential aspect not give the fetus the life right or even make it a mistake to kill them? Warren concluded that if prospective things have the right of real things, then the prospective adults, criminals, spouses, judges, and doctors also have rights over the actual ones. Since they do not, it is reasonable that prospective personhood does not possess the right of real personhood.

Abortion, in all its nature, does not prevent the fetus from going through its cherished future compared to what killing us would have done. A fetus is never aware of what the future holds for them, and that distinguishes their future and our future. Thus, it would be prudent for the present person’s future to be safeguarded and not disregarded on the premises of saving the perceived future of prospective creature. Besides, spam and an egg that would prospectively fertilize can arguably have the same right to those that fetuses possess. Contraceptives like abstinence also contribute to keeping such a future of the fetus from materializing. However, abstinence and contraceptives are never perceived to be wrong. Therefore, according to Warren, it is also not wrong to undertake some of the actions like abortion to prevent the materialization of such a future.

Supposed all the discussed arguments are incorrect, and all the fetus are persons who have the right to life then, does abortion become a wrong thing to pursue? In terms of rights to life, fetuses may have the right to the body of a pregnant woman’s body, and so she does not violate their rights if they do not allow the fetus to use the body. Thus, until fetuses can be detached from the womb of a woman and put in a new womb, abortion may not at all violate the rights of fetuses; hence it can be permissible. Ideally, abortion is both an ethical and legal thing that should be evaluated from such grounds.

Reasonability of the Premises

Conclusively, the above premises can be perceived to be reasonable enough in defense of Warren’s point of view regarding abortion. The consequences of Warren’s perspectives that both infanticide and abortion are perceived as forms of murder. Infanticide may not be wrong to be done, especially in countries where persons do not desire or even have resources to take care (Molefe, Motsamai 86). The Warren perspective in which she proposes in the argument regarding personhood has great implications not only in abortion perspective but also for euthanasia infanticide and moral rights of both nonhuman animals and women. Warren believes that fetus potential does not offer reasonable grounds to save the fetus, and that begs the question of how it would have been for an adult person. The Warren’s sound argument, t implies that not only the fetus could be killed but also any senile person. Thus, if a right of life exists, then it is nor only for the normal persons, but all those other persons have a right to live. Therefore, the premises are reasonable and hold a lot of water as Warren proposes the reason and causes of abortions.

Works Cited

Vaughn, Lewis. Doing Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues. New York: W.W. Norton, 2012. 381-386

Molefe, Motsamai. “Personhood and Abortion in African Philosophy.” An African Ethics of Personhood and Bioethics. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2020. 69-102.