Mary Anne Warren’s argument that “because women are persons and fetuses are not, women’s rights override whatever right to life a fetus may possess” because of the characteristics of personhood and moral community that a fetus does not yet have (Warren 164) is shown through the following argument:1) If unwanted and dangerous pregnancies occur, woman should morally and justifiably have the right without any restrictions to have an abortion.
2) Unwanted and dangerous pregnancies occur.3) Therefore, women should be allowed to have abortions without any restrictions by the law. This argument is sound because the premises match up and they are supported by all of the facts and details she writes about. Abortion is the act of a women deliberately ending her pregnancy before it came time to give birth; causing a fetus to die (Warren 164). In this paper I will be arguing for the first premise in the argument stated above.Warren attempts to justify the first premise through multiple examples.
She agrees with Thompson’s argument that no one has the duty to keep another human alive if it is going to have a considerable personal cost unless the person has an obligation toward the individual (like a close family member). She ties Thompson’s statement into her own argument by showing that a woman has no moral obligation towards an unwanted and unborn fetus. Furthermore, in cases of rape or incest, it is completely plausible for a woman to desire an abortion and not have moral obligation to the fetus. She explains that, although some pregnancies occur merely from improper contraceptive use, it is still permissible for abortions to occur on the grounds of when life for a fetus actually begins and truly matters.Warren makes clear that the people in the moral community have all of the rights that a living and active being (like us) have. She argues that there is a clear distinction between a “humanity” and a “personsonhood”.
If you are genetically human then you are considered a human being; however, you must possess attributes of personhood in order to be considered a part of the moral community. So, she is proving that being merely genetically human is not enough to be considered an entity of personhood and a part of the moral community.Warren uses the following six characteristics in determining if something is a person and could be a part of the moral community: sentience, emotionality, reason, the capacity to communicate, self-awareness, and moral agency. Through this, she allows personhood to become a continuum and, since a fetus has none of these characteristics, they are not considered “persons”. Therefore, a woman’s rights to her body will always outweigh the rights of the fetus.
Many women choose to have early abortions. However, even then, fetuses in a late abortion cannot be considered a person, because they still do not have enough of the characteristics of personhood.Through these examples of how Warren disproves many common arguments which have been made, she succeeds in proving to us that a woman is indeed obliged to have an abortion if she is in need of one. I believe that it is morally wrong for a woman to suffer because of an unwanted fetus which does not have the characteristics or capabilities of a human being. It is a violation of basic moral and constitutional rights.
Although I do understand that it one day can have the capabilities that any other human does, it does not yet have the characteristics of personhood and it is not in the moral community. Therefore, a woman should never be denied the right to an abortion, especially when she could have been impregnated from incest or rape.
