My best friend is a 26-year-old woman in Medical School at the University of South Florida who has had two abortions. Through each one, I have stood by her as a faithful and loyal friend. This is not something she wishes everyone to know, but this woman is not bashful about it if asked. As a matter of fact, she has discussed it several times in front of me. In these cases, her birth control failed, and she aborted her unborn children early in the pregnancy. Simply, she made the decision to abort because she just wasn’t ready. Honestly, being a successful medical student, would you blame her?
I found myself beginning to judge her after twenty years of friendship, and I think, she would not be pleased with my judgment. But, after wondering what I would do in her shoes, I have asked myself, “Is abortion justified”? My view, No. Abortion is immoral in every circumstance, which makes me an ultra-conservative person. Before I begin to discuss Marry Ann Warrens’ article, “Abortion is Morally Permissible”, I wish to define the different views of abortion. The first view of abortion is a called, “Ultra-Conservative”, which state regardless of the reason, having an abortion is immoral.
This, as I stated in my introductory paragraph, is my personal view of abortion. The second view is referred to as, “Moderate-Conservative”, which states that abortion is permissible in some instances, but, overall, not moral in others. In society, many people believe this view to be accurate. But, who can judge what is permissible or not? The third view is the “Ultra-Liberal position”, which is the view that Mary Ann Warren wishes to provide support for in her article, “Abortion is Morally Permissible. ” This position states that abortion is fine in all instances, regardless of the circumstances.
Although many people have different views, Mary Ann Warren does hold the view of Ultra-Liberal. In Warrens’ article, she believes that a child is not a “person”. She believes that before the fetus reaches a certain point in the mothers’ pregnancy, the child cannot understand the concept behind abortion. Warren (2000) mentions in her article the following about the development of a fetus: “In the ways that matter, from a moral point of view, human fetuses are very unlike human persons, particularly in the early months of development. ”
Generally, Warren defines that the forming of a fetus into a “person” can only come after the first trimester. I disagree. To me, this is the most controversial portion of her argument. While they may not have the ability to act upon circumstances or make decisions, does not mean that fetus are not “persons. ” Most people as well as myself would say that humans begin at conception, and grow from there. The baby in the womb before birth is the same baby as when he or she is held in his/her mother’s arms after birth. Birth causes a change in the baby’s methods of obtaining food and oxygen, but does not cause a change in the baby itself.
However, many ultra liberalists deny this. Many medical textbooks show that experts on human development agree that human life begins at conception and continues in the mother’s womb. Below are a few quotes I have obtained from medical books relating to Gynecology and Embryology: Langman (1977), a doctor in Philadelphia, states the following in regards to the development of a fetus: “The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, a ygote, which is the beginning of a fetus.
Gilbert (1939), states the following in regards to fertilization: “At the moment of fertilization there has been determined not only the existence of this new human being, but also his individuality. ” These statements are not quotations from what I call “pro-abortion” information; they come from scientific textbooks on medical embryology used around the world. None of the texts I researched state that human life begins at birth or after first trimester, as Warren eventually states in her argument for abortion. The textbooks show that experts agree (professionals as the ones above) as to when human life begins.
They all agree that life of a new human being begins at fertilization with the production of a zygote. When human life begins is a subject on which there seems to be many opinions, but there is only one fact. The lack of agreement among these people is not because scientists have not been able to determine when human life begins, but because some people are mistaken, such as Mary Ann Warren. In her article, Warren (2000) mentions the following traits that she feels are traits of a fetus being classified as a “person”.
Consciousness of objects and events external and/or internal to the being, and in particular the capacity to feel pain. ” “Reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems. ) “Self-motivated activity (activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control) “The capacity to communicate, by whatever means, messages of an indefinite variety of types, that is, not just with an indefinite number if possible contents, but on indefinitely many possible topics. “The presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness, either individual or racial, or both.
If I were to refer to her five characteristics of being a person as listed above, a fetus could not be a person and abortion is moral. Untrue. She admits that a person doesn’t need to meet all of the above criteria, but should have a few. However, she does not state which ones are critical for the “reward” of her signifying them as a member of “personhood. ” This opens a door for philosophers and other people to say that she is saying yes to infanticide, because an infant is not much more of a person than a fetus according to the five standards listed above.
Other questions people may ask are: What about animals? Can we take children and kill them at anytime irregardless of age or location? I do not know of many people that would agree to this, even Mary Ann Warren herself. One argument that is against Mary Ann Warrens’ article is an article written by Richard Werner titled, “Abortion: The Ontological and Moral Status of the Unborn. ” He forms an argument that states, “If you and I are human beings, then there is every reason to believe and no good reason to deny that the moment of conception onward and that all previously proposed cut-off for determining when one is a human are unacceptable.
Werner says the cut-off points are “unacceptable” because there is no clear line that is to be drawn in the human’s development from conception to adulthood that can be used to “say a being does not have a right to life before that. ” According to Werner, since there is this hazy period in the fetus development where it gradually becomes a human, the fetus can be considered a human from the moment of conception onward. Since the fetus will eventually reach human hood if it is allowed time to develop, it should not be denied its opportunity for life.
This strengthens the fact that fetus are “persons” at the time of conception. So what do you think? Which view do you wish to take? And for what reasons? Does it matter if a mother is not old enough, is worried about life changes, can’t afford a baby, doesn’t want to be a single parent, or is just plain not ready? Was my original intuition about my best friend’s choices the right one? Or was I right to re-examine the reason for my judgment? I hope this goes to show that fetus are human and “person” even before they are born.
