Warren's Argument Against Abortion

Warren’s argument is convenient for abortion advocates, if embryos and fetuses are less than people, then it may be morally permissible to end their life before birth. However, Warren’s premise and argument is flawed, and she fails to see the indications of personhood outside of consciousness. Primarily, moral personhood is not defined by an ability to reason, it is instead defined by a state of being. Philosopher Francis Beckwich, discusses moral personhood in relation to abortion when he discusses the substance of the human being, a quality which, he says, persists through change, “each kind of living organism or substance, including the human being maintains identity through change as well as possessing a nature or essence that makes
certain activities and functions possible.” (Beckwich) Throughout their lifespan, humans go through many stages of development and reasoning.
One argument against abortion is the claim that the fetus is a potential person and that it wrong to kill the fetus, as it would deprive it of future pleasures it would experience in life.
This argument is easily rebutted, and Janet Hadley argues against it by claiming that the potential for personhood does not equal moral value, “How far back does potentiality go–to the individual sperm or egg? No anti-abortion advocate have yet proposed rescuing eggs or sperm in order to save lives” (Hadley,68) Hadley and other pro-abortion advocates are correct in this argument, however, they fail to realize why killing a fetus is actually wrong. Philosopher Don Marquis, in his famous work, Why Abortion is Wrong, gives an explanation of why death is undesirable, “The loss of one’s life deprives one of all the experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted one’s future.” Marquis goes on to explain that this is why abortion is immoral, because it takes away the potential experiences and future that the child will have. (Marqus) But it is not wrong because of the fetus’ potential personhood, but it is already a person and killing it would rob it of it’s future
life.
In order to quantify what creates personhood outside of biological humanness, one must deny the worth of all people. If the capacity to reason is created as a prerequisite to personhood, then it creates ethical conundrums and incongruencies. If people are defined by their ability to reason, than it creates a dangerous precedent which makes little sense. According to philosopher Peter Kreeft, this kind of thinking is dangerous because a criteria of personhood, like the one created by Warren, excludes many people besides embryos and fetuses. Newborn infants or people in comas (or even those who are asleep) cannot function consciously and therefore, would also not meet the criteria of personhood–it would be permissible to kill them. Kreef notes this and critiques the pro-abortion stance, calling it a “functionalist” position. He writes, “Functioning as a person is a sign and an effect of being a person. It is because of what we are, because of our nature or essence or being, that we can and do function in these ways” (Kreeft). Like Beckwich, Kreeft claims that fetuses do not need all the same functions as a fully grown individual to be considered persons, indeed, they claim that biological reality is the best way to determine when personhood begins.
Even though a fetus before the third trimester cannot live apart from its mother, it is still a separate being from the mother, and its dependency does not lessen the personhood of the fetus. Abortion advocates claim that there is something unique about the relationship between the fetus and the mother; the mother has power over the fetus because it is dependent upon her body for life. Writer and advocate Janet Hadley makes this claim, “Once the baby is born–separated from the women’s body–their relationship is changed forever, however dependent the baby still is on others for it’s survival” (Hadley, 68). Warren defends this, claiming that inside the woman’s body, “there is room for only one being with full and equal rights” (Warren). However, it is important not to conflate the fetus with the mother, or pit them against each other. Beckwich defends the uniqueness of the fetus by asserting that, after conception the baby is not affected genetically by the mother. “Because the conceptus can be brought into existence in a petri dish, as evidence in the case of the so-called test-tube baby, and since this entity, if it has white parents, can be transferred to the womb of a black woman and be born white, we know conclusively that the conceptus is not part of the woman’s body” (69-70). Since the child in the womb is a unique being, it possesses all the rights afforded to it, and it is illogical to challenge its rights based on the mother’s rights. Under normal circumstances a mother has the legal responsibility to provide for and raise her children (with the help of the father), and this should not change if the child is unborn.
In reality, there is no good way to measure where life begins outside of biological truth. Any other method is entirely subjective and troublesome, it will either be completely arbitrary or incompatible with other assumptions about morality. All other explanations (like life is defined by the ability to reason) describe the beginning of life as a process in which there is no clear point when fetus becomes a moral subject. Furthermore, for many explanations, the process does not come to an end until after birth, making infanticide justifiable. During conception, every genetic element of the human is present, life has undeniable begun and the embryo is indisputably, biologically human. All other explanations of personhood are pure conjecture. They create moral dilemmas which undermine their own argument; the biological explanation of personhood requires the least amount of assumptions, and it is the best explanation for personhood.
While abortion is morally forbidden simply because it harms the fetus, there is evidence that abortion can affect the mental health of women in dramatic ways.
Multiple studies provide solid affirmation that, after abortions, a disproportionate amount of women suffer from mental disabilities including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and depression. Psychologists Jesse Cougle, David Reardon, and Priscilla Coleman, in a 2003 study, compared women who, when pregnant for the first time, had a abortion, and those who birthed the child. The researchers found a sixty-five percent increase in depression risk for the women who aborted the fetus. (Cougle) This study is, however, only one piece of evidence for their claim. David Fergusson, a notable psychologist, in 2008 found that women who had a abortion were more likely to suffer from mental disorders. Fergusson estimates that post abortion mental illness acounts for 1.5 percent to 5.5 percent of all mental illness. (Fergesson) Many, including Theresa Burke, PhD, claim that many women suffer from a form of PTSD in the years following abortions. In her article, Abortion and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder she recounts personal stories of women who suffered greatly in the wake of an abortion. “Terry is plagued by nightmares. There is always a little girl crying for ‘mommy,’ with her arms outstretched and her eyes filled with fear and abandon. Terry usually takes strong barbiturates each night to avoid this painful
nocturnal phenomenon.” The reality of abortion is that it has the potential to cause great pain for those who experience it, and therefore its alleged benefits should be questioned.
More than forty years after Roe v. Wade, abortion remains a divisive and emotionally charged topic of debate. It may see odd that a common medical practice would be criticised so heavily and cause so much turmoil in the nation. However, abortion is more than just a controversial procedure, it is a moral atrocity because it kills an innocent life. Abortion murder because, after conception, an embryo is, in every sense of the word, a person. Unborn children deserve the protection of the law, and though it is improbable that abortion will be made illegal in the near future, there is always hope that someday Roe v. Wade will be repealed. It is the moral duty of every citizen to protect the rights of the voiceless, whether they be the poor, the elderly, or the unborn. Advocate and physician Mildred Jefferson says it best, “The fight for the right to life is not the cause of a special few, but the cause of every man, woman and child who cares not only about his or her own family, but the whole family of man” (Andrusko).