This paper offers a quick summary of the abortion debate and respected view points from famous philosophers addressing one of the largest debates in America, abortion. These arguments include each side of the topic, pro-life and pro-choice, or how they are referred to in the paper, the moral impermissibility and the moral permissibility of abortion. In addition to these philosophical arguments is an analysis of these viewpoints and common criticism that go along with each of them. Marry Anne Warren, Don Marquis, and professor at the University of Arizona, Michael McKenna’s arguments are addressed and expanded upon throughout this paper.
The topic of abortion has drawn many Americans to take a stand on what they believe is right. Pro-life and pro-choice are terminology that allow the greater population to hover towards, without having to do much thinking of their own. These two terms are highly politically and morally charged as they are used in a vague sense to categorize both sides. Rather, I believe it is most effective to think of the two sides of this controversy as the moral impermissibility of abortion, and the moral permissibility of abortion (Timmons, 2017). Those who support the moral permissibility of abortion do not see it as something gleeful, rather it is an available measure, accessible to pregnant women, that can be seen as morally permissible. These terms allow for us to think more clearly and offer a dispassionate assessment of the issue that we can judge for ourselves.
So, what is at stake in this heated debate? Well, since this controversy deals with the moral impermissibility and the moral permissibility of the issue, the moral wrong of abortion is at stake. The moral wrong of abortion that is involved between the two sides is really about the moral wrongness of the action, when what is at stake, is whether or not a fetus has a right to life and by killing it, it could be deemed as murder (Timmons, 2017). One surface level argument that is commonly used by politicians, is that abortion is the killing of an innocent human being, thus it is morally wrong. Although this could be true, it is an example of a question-begging argument that commits a crucial fallacy. The fallacy of reasoning is used to draw a conclusion through poor means, in which the reasons that are offered are not reasons that should independently get a person to see that they have to rationally be committed to accept this conclusion. The criticism of this fallacy is that the reasons that are offered for this conclusion are reasons that in themselves, already presuppose the conclusion.
One would not accept the reasons offered, unless one already accepted this conclusion. This argument fails at moving those who do not agree with this statement, to the side of moral impermissibility. The second surface level argument states that a woman has the right to do with her body what she chooses. A rights based conception of morality would agree that a woman can do with her body what she wants, but it is not an unlimited right. There are certain limits of this right that deal with harming one’s own body which may not apply to this debate. If it turns out that there is in fact another human inside a woman’s body, than it may suggests that there are limits to what a woman can do (Timmons, 2017). So what do philosophers on both sides of the controversy have to say? In this essay, I will delve into the moral permissibility and moral impermissibility viewpoints of famous philosophers regarding the contemporary topic of abortion.
What drives the thinking of most when forming opinions of the topic is, when does human life actually begin? Those on the moral permissibility side appeal to the logic that after conception, a clump of cells does not constitute a human life. Surely, a clump of cells is not a human being, therefore, abortion is morally permissible. These individuals are highly in favor of disregarding the biological model because of the appeal to ignorance of the supreme court during Roe v. Wade through granting the fetus rights to life, when in fact, nobody knows when life actually begins. Mary Anne Warren challenges this thought process by denying the fact that human beings have rights to life, rather, it is persons that have this right to life (Timmons, 2017).
When proposing this, she develops a theory of personhood to further explain what constitutes for a person (Timmons, 2017). This is to show that a human being and a person differ because a human being is considered an animal (Timmons, 2017). This type of animal eventually develops a certain level of sophistication, that would in turn satisfy enough properties to then be considered a person (Timmons, 2017). Once this human being transitions to personhood, then it would have rights to life and have claims on others (Timmons, 2017). The key assumption of Warren’s argument is to deny that if something is a human being, it has rights to life (Timmons, 2017). This alternative philosophical strategy states that what matters is personhood, instead of being a member of a biological species. She offers a proposal of the conditions that are needed for personhood, including the concept of consciousness, or, awareness (Timmons, 2017). This applies to a being’s ability to be conscious of it’s surroundings. For instance, a deer that is aware of the fact that a predator is chasing after it, in which it would run away. An alternative property of personhood is the ability to reason, the ability to problem solve or solve an issue (Timmons, 2017). This could be applied to a bird if their nest happened to be damaged, as the bird would then follow the process of constructing a new nest.
Self motivated activity in which someone has the ability to make plans and engage in them is another constraint of personhood (Timmons, 2017). Although, a great criticism brought up by Michael McKenna, stated that her theory of personhood can be challenged, because a large percentage of wild animals also encompass these traits of personhood. Therefore, many animals that we run into could also be considered persons. Although, an assumption can be made through one of the properties of persons, the ability to communicate, in which it could translate to the ability to communicate through the use of languages. Abortion is clearly morally permissible because of the fact that one is not killing a being with a right to life. This is because no fetus will develop relevant features that will be needed to constitute a person. This is a credible view on the moral permissibility of abortion because there is a metaphysical distinction between being a member of an animal species and a person with rights to life. Thus abortion is not a procedure done on a being with a right to life (Timmons, 2017).
Those on the moral impermissibility side of this argument often claim that human life begins immediately after conception. After a certain number of weeks, it becomes apparent that facial features, organs, and a heartbeat begin to develop, which signifies a developing human being with rights to life. Although, the philosopher Don Marquis argues that abortion is morally wrong even if the fetus is not a human being, a person, or contains any features of a being that would constitute a right to life (Timmons, 2017). Marquis gives his opponents of this debate their biggest assumption and then he argues against them. He begins by asking the question, “why is murder such a deep moral wrong? (Timmons, 2017)” Most people assume that their are levels of moral wrongness and one of the most terrible wrongs, along with others, is murdering someone (Timmons, 2017). He then distinguishes between the two types of harms, positive harms and negative harms (Timmons, 2017).
A positive harm can be deemed as a state where an individual is being harmed, either physically or mentally (Timmons, 2017). While a negative harm includes the concept of deprivation (Timmons, 2017). Meaning this harm deprives a person of something in which they would otherwise have an opportunity to benefit from. What makes it wrong to murder someone is the tragedy that death deprives them of and the opportunities and benefits of living (Timmons, 2017). Although a fetus is not a person, Marquis is conveying the idea that the destruction of a fetus is the deprivation of a future, such as the murdering of someone with a right to life (Timmons, 2017). The abortion of a fetus is the deprivation of the benefits of life from an entity that will eventually become a person (Timmons, 2017). A common criticism of this view states that some of these fetuses may grow up in terrible living situations or have deformities. Although, people can live in these extreme conditions and still have very rich lives and see the beauty in living, as appreciation of life can be seen in many ways.
The last perspective that I would like to address, which correlates with my standing on the issue, is one that comes from esteemed philosophy professor Michael McKenna. This view is heavily based off of Mary Anne Warren’s own view, with a few differences that makes this argument more sound. He begins by stating, “What distinguishes persons from non persons? (M. McKenna, personal communication, November 29, 2018)” His proposal is, that instead of classifying a person as someone with the capacity for consciousness, we should classify persons as having the ability to turn their own consciousness on their internal states and recognize themselves as a being with consciousness (M. McKenna, personal communication, November 29, 2018).
The key is that a person should be able to recognize their own state of consciousness and have the capacity to engage in self reflection (M. McKenna, personal communication, November 29, 2018). This property that would identify persons seems to be more convincing than the criteria proposed by Mary Anne Warren. From this, we can say that fetuses do not have the capacity of self consciousness or self awareness, therefore, it is morally permissible to perform abortions on any stage of fetal development. The criticism of this proposal is that one could say the logistics of this argument could justify infanticide. This is because a fetus does not happen to encompass the capacities for personhood once it emerges from the womb.
Mary Anne Warren attempts to combat this criticism by saying that the reason it would be wrong to kill an infant is because some other person could benefit from having the infant and it would eventually become a person (Timmons, 2017). Michael McKenna criticizes this argument because what if the infant comes into a world where no one wants a baby, thus the infants value would diminish (M. McKenna, personal communication, November 29, 2018). The abortion debate is not just about the possibility that performing an abortion is morally wrong, it is about abortion being morally wrong because it violates the rights to life of a person.
References
- Timmons, M. (2017). Disputed moral issues a reader. New York: Oxford University Press.
