Analysis Of Mary Anne Warren's Permissibility Of Abortion
In her piece, Mary Anne Warren argues the permissibility of abortion by holding that moral disagreement to abortion is founded on the following argument:1. It is wrong to kill innocent human beings. 2. The fetus is an innocent human being. 3. Hence it is wrong to kill the fetus (432). To Warren, ‘human being’ is used in different contexts thinks that 'human being' is used in two different senses in both argument 1. and 2. In argument 1, 'human being' is being used in a moral connotation to mean a 'person' or 'true member of the moral community'. In (2), 'human being' means 'biological human'. That the fetus is a biological human organism Warren holds. But it does not mean that the fetus is a person, and it is persons with rights, essentially,
…show more content…
the right to life. That as humans, (694). Warren sets forth with her argument by defining the moral community Fetus is for a person to be a member of a moral community there must these five criteria or traits: consciousness, reasoning, self-motivating, communicative and possessed of self-concept (433).
I feel as if her argument is weak due to her criteria of what constitutes something as being part of the moral community. My reason being that if we use her criteria then that would include disabled people and people in vegetative stats are not a part of the moral community. People with dementia But again, remember that all she is claiming is that a being with NONE of them isn't a person. So even having one would be potentially sufficient for personhood.
four premises that he claims will argues that we as humans have “spheres of freedom” in which we are free to do anything we wish, so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others (694-695).
Her second premise is that humans have an obligation to not waste; we should use all our resources, labors, or skills so that they can aid in our satisfaction (695). Warren’s third premise comes from Kantian moral theory: we should treat people as ends and not means (695). Her final premise is that we as individuals should be the ones to enforce the other premises (695). All things considered, there is a potential flaw in Warren’s third premise. He claims that we should (695). However, in her argument, Warren didn’t clearly define what a person is. For example, In fact, some dolphins are even self-aware enough to recognize th Seeing as how there are many similarities between humans and personhood. It is possible that Kant’s moral theory doesn’t have to end in an abortion. All things considered, Warren could counter argue and claim that a person is a being that has two legs, two arms, opposable thumbs, and is both sentient and rational which would strengthen her argument. Although, there are other beings who possess these characteristics, and some humans who
don’t. While her other premises could be fitting, it is hard to say that her argument is compelling. Especially after her lack of defining a person because her whole argument is based on the idea that we should (694). However, fetuses are also persons, we would be hurting them by not treating them appropriately.
the right to life. That as humans, (694). Warren sets forth with her argument by defining the moral community Fetus is for a person to be a member of a moral community there must these five criteria or traits: consciousness, reasoning, self-motivating, communicative and possessed of self-concept (433).
I feel as if her argument is weak due to her criteria of what constitutes something as being part of the moral community. My reason being that if we use her criteria then that would include disabled people and people in vegetative stats are not a part of the moral community. People with dementia But again, remember that all she is claiming is that a being with NONE of them isn't a person. So even having one would be potentially sufficient for personhood.
four premises that he claims will argues that we as humans have “spheres of freedom” in which we are free to do anything we wish, so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others (694-695).
Her second premise is that humans have an obligation to not waste; we should use all our resources, labors, or skills so that they can aid in our satisfaction (695). Warren’s third premise comes from Kantian moral theory: we should treat people as ends and not means (695). Her final premise is that we as individuals should be the ones to enforce the other premises (695). All things considered, there is a potential flaw in Warren’s third premise. He claims that we should (695). However, in her argument, Warren didn’t clearly define what a person is. For example, In fact, some dolphins are even self-aware enough to recognize th Seeing as how there are many similarities between humans and personhood. It is possible that Kant’s moral theory doesn’t have to end in an abortion. All things considered, Warren could counter argue and claim that a person is a being that has two legs, two arms, opposable thumbs, and is both sentient and rational which would strengthen her argument. Although, there are other beings who possess these characteristics, and some humans who
don’t. While her other premises could be fitting, it is hard to say that her argument is compelling. Especially after her lack of defining a person because her whole argument is based on the idea that we should (694). However, fetuses are also persons, we would be hurting them by not treating them appropriately.