Abortion

1. Abortion Mary Anne Warren

2. A Brief History • Abortion has been used throughout history, and has not become a criminal offence until anti-abortion legislation in the late 19th century • Arguments against abortions in past: medical dangers of such a procedure, form of homicide as fetuses are human beings from contraception on • Abortions now are medically safer than childbirth

3. Pro-Choice Argument 1: • Prohibition of abortions leads to undesirable consequences • “If actions are to be morally evaluated by their consequences, then a strong case can be made that the prohibition of abortion is wrong” (Warren 303). • This is a very Utilitarian point of view- if undesired consequences result in the unhappiness of an individual or a society as a whole, then abortion should not be prohibited • Complete celibacy of women impractical in modern day societies- for both single and married women> contraceptive necessary but often times unavailable • Overpopulation worry: “Unless population growth rates are reduced in those impoverished societies where they remain high, malnutrition and starvation will become even more widespread than at present” (Warren 304). • Would Peter Singer support the permission of abortion if it meant reducing absolute poverty worldwide (or at least reduce its spread)?

4. Pro-Choice Argument 2: • Women have a moral right to choose abortion • “To say that people have a right to life is to say, roughly, that they should never deliberately be killed or deprived of the necessities of life, unless the only alternative is some much greater evil” (Warren 305). • Singer would absolutely agree with this argument. However, I wonder if he would consider the highly undesirable consequences that often times follow pregnancy, birth, and either adoption or raising a child unprepared? • Basic moral rights= those which all people have (do not depend upon circumstances, contracts or context) • Include life, liberty, self-determination, freedom from the infliction of bodily harm • ‘“There is no ther case in which the law requires individuals (who have been convicted of no crime) to sacrifice liberty, self-determination, and bodily integrity in order to preserve the lives of others”’ (Thomson qtd. in Warren 306). • “It is one thing to have a right, and another to be morally justified in exercising that right in a particular case” (Warren 306). • This is where Kant would agree. Kant would most likely argue that while a woman may have a right to happiness and even the preservation of her life, if it is her duty to bring new life into the world or give the fetus its best chance at life, she would be morally obliged to have the child. This ignores the happiness of the mother and any potential negative consequence that may occur as a result of her “duty”.

5. Pro-Choice Argument 3: • Fetuses are not yet persons and thus do not yet have a substantial right to life • “Most contemporary legal systems treat birth as the point at which a new legal person comes into existence. Thus, infanticide is generally classified as a form of homicide, whereas abortion- even where prohibited- generally is not” (Warren 306). • Reverence for life • All organisms have a will to live, and anyone with moral sensibility will spare the life of any living thing • Destruction of living things disrupts ‘biotic community’: world is worth valuing for its own sake • “Reverence for life suggests that, other than things being equal, it is always better to avoid killing a living thing” (Warren 307). • Singer would agree with this statement, and would go far enough to say that neglecting a human being can be compared to assisting in its demise • Not all killing avoidable- understood in circumstances as long as its not for fun or sport (abortion does not fall under either of these categories, but rather one of necessity that appeals to Utilitarian concepts)

6. Pro-Choice Argument 3 Cont’d: • Fetuses in the first trimester are not sentient beings (capable of having experiences) • No functioning central nervous system: cannot have painful or pleasurable experiences, therefore does not derive any future pleasures it could experience in life (does not cause it misery in death) • Killing of a sentient being is not always bad, and is often necessary in the animal kingdom for survival and future life • Not always evil in terms of Utilitarianism- provides good for the society as a whole • Personhood and Moral rights: “A morally sensitive person will respect all life-forms, and will be careful to avoid needlessly inflicting pain or death upon sentient beings. However,, she will respect the basic moral rights of other persons as equal to her own, not just because they are alive and sentient, but also because she can reasonably hope and demand tat they will show her the same respect” • Fetuses do not have the mental capacities associated with personhood, attributing slightly less value to their existence as human beings • This argument can be held for babies, and those mentally debilitated as well, making it an exclusive, rather than inclusive criterion for what is acceptable

7. Pro-Choice Argument 3 Cont’d: • Abortions not distributed loosely: not “upon request”, but within the first trimester, when the woman has knowledge of the pregnancy and time to think over the options and her readiness as a potential mother • Cannot value the life of the fetus over the mother- may cause societal pressures for women that are not fit to be mothers (therefore diminishing the potential happiness of themselves and their children) • Rights to life start at birth when the rights are not associated and directly affecting another (the mother)