Warren's Argument On Abortion
Warren’s thesis is that fetuses are not persons and since only persons have full moral rights and person-like beings have a right to life in particular, fetuses do not have a right to life. She argues that fetuses are not persons because they lack the basic qualifying traits of personhood or moral humanity. She also believes that the rights of persons will always override the rights of potential persons and that there should be no restrictions on when an abortion must occur by. Her argument is a direct response to Noonan’s thesis which is that fetuses are humans and therefore have human rights. Noonan argues that “it is wrong to kill innocent human beings and fetuses are innocent human beings, then it is wrong to kill fetuses” (Warren, 338).
…show more content…
The opposing argument is that a nine month old fetus is relatively similar to an infant, so if abortion of a nine month old is justified then infanticide is justified (Warren, 342). Therefore if infanticide is considered as a type of murder, then abortion should be considered similarly. But Warren responds that infanticide is in fact different from abortion. First, infanticide would deprive others of parenthood as infants are able to be given to adoption centers/agencies and orphanages. Secondly, unlike an infant, “the unborn fetus, contrary to the wishes of the pregnant woman, violates her rights to freedom, happiness, and self-determination” (Warren, 342). An infant poses no threats to the life of the woman as it no longer resides within her body using it to keep itself alive. Lastly, she concludes that infanticide can be justified under certain conditions and only those where the greater good overrides the death of the infant. An example of this can be seen with the Eskimos; they need more men to go out to salvage food. Therefore if there are more women than men then they have more mouths to feed than bodies to go hunting and infanticide of female infants is permitted otherwise they will die out. Another example would be if the infant is born with such a devastating birth defect, such as trisomy 28, and will otherwise live a painful life thus permitting
The opposing argument is that a nine month old fetus is relatively similar to an infant, so if abortion of a nine month old is justified then infanticide is justified (Warren, 342). Therefore if infanticide is considered as a type of murder, then abortion should be considered similarly. But Warren responds that infanticide is in fact different from abortion. First, infanticide would deprive others of parenthood as infants are able to be given to adoption centers/agencies and orphanages. Secondly, unlike an infant, “the unborn fetus, contrary to the wishes of the pregnant woman, violates her rights to freedom, happiness, and self-determination” (Warren, 342). An infant poses no threats to the life of the woman as it no longer resides within her body using it to keep itself alive. Lastly, she concludes that infanticide can be justified under certain conditions and only those where the greater good overrides the death of the infant. An example of this can be seen with the Eskimos; they need more men to go out to salvage food. Therefore if there are more women than men then they have more mouths to feed than bodies to go hunting and infanticide of female infants is permitted otherwise they will die out. Another example would be if the infant is born with such a devastating birth defect, such as trisomy 28, and will otherwise live a painful life thus permitting