A Discussion Regarding the Issue of Abortion

Pro-Choice
Name
Institution
Course
Due Date
Pro-Choice
Abortion remains a controversial issue because of the religious and moral variations surrounding it. The subject of abortion arises two extremes pro-life who condemn and pro-choice who favor it. Different jurisdictions employ laws ranging from permission to prohibition of abortion. Majorly, abortion raises fundamental questions on when life begins and what makes individuals persons with moral rights to life. Abortion remains at the heart of the controversy, which extends to the right of women to control their bodies. For instance, is it justified for a woman to abort following rape? What about where a pregnancy endangers the life of the mother? Evidence demonstrates that permissive abortion can reduce the prevalence of child abuse because it reduces unwanted pregnancy. Despite the apparent dangers pregnancy poses sometimes, pro-life activists demonstrate no justification for aborting a fetus. On the other hand, pro-choice advocates maintain that women should determine what happens to their bodies, including determining the fate of the fetus. Women should have the final say on whether they want to keep a baby or not because a fetus has not developed enough to have the same rights as other members of society.[Bitler, Marianne, and Madeline Zavodny. "Child abuse and abortion availability." Pg. 363]
The terms personhood and human being are not interchangeable. The term human being is a distinguishing factor that simply helps to separate humanity from other species. However, it is the qualifying factor for personhood, and therefore, these two terms should not be used interchangeably. The term being can simply be defined as the quality of existing. Therefore, when used together with the term human, which denotes a species, the meaning retrieved is the existence of a particular species, in this case, humans. However, belonging to a species by virtue of having certain physical features does not qualify any being to belong to the human race or to be endowed with the essence of personhood. Warren notes that there is a need to distinguish between the “concepts of a person with that of genetic humanity.” She states it clearly that people often claim that a fetus is a human being because of their wish to have others treat fetuses decently, not that fetuses have attained personhood. In her article, she introduces five attributes that she considers crucial for personhood. These include consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, communication, and self-awareness. Using these five traits to distinguish between human beings and human beings with personhood, it is clear that fetuses are indeed human beings because of their genetic sense but are not people because they lack a moral sense. Eberl appears to be in support of Warren’s assertions, noting that “the essence of human personhood is an integration of both of its required components: form and matter.” He continues to explain that form is also denoted as the soul of which there are three types: the vegetative, sensitive, and the intellective soul. Eberl makes it clear that matter and form co-exist and that neither exists apart from the other. For fetuses, even though matter could be said to exist, there is no proof that the soul exists. A fetus does not have the sensitive and intellective soul. Further, even though it does have a vegetative soul, this is subject to what the mother eats. What the fetus consumes is under the control of what the mother consumes. The fetus does not have the capacity to act independently of the mother’s direct control through her diet. Kominiarek and Rajan note that the nutritional status of a mother is crucial to the health of the fetus, and hence the many physicians and nutritional counselors trying to warn women regarding the same. All the above happens outside the control of the fetus. Therefore, the lack of choice over what the fetus can consume happens to refute the notion of its personhood. Furthermore, when assessed against the five traits of personhood as indicated by Warren, a fetus fails to satisfy even a single one. Aside from having no self-motivated activity, a fetus does not have consciousness, reasoning, the capacity to communicate, and is not self-aware.[Warren, Mary. “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion.” pg. 56.] [Ibid pg. 56.] [Ibid pg. 55.] [Eberl, Jason T. "The beginning of personhood: a Thomistic biological analysis."  pg. 31] [Sheldon, Sally. "The decriminalisation of abortion: An argument for modernisation." ] [Kominiarek, Michelle A, and Priya Rajan. “Nutrition Recommendations in Pregnancy and Lactation.” pg. 1.]
Human fetuses do not have a right to life. Antiabortionists apply the expression “right to life” wrongly. In this case, pro-life crusaders use the phrase to imply the continued existence of a biological organism. The primary focus here is wrong since biological organisms need more than continuous existence. For instance, suppose technology allows the reprogramming of the mind such that memories, personality traits, and beliefs can be erased and new information encoded. In such a case, it can be said that the particular individual has been destroyed and their right to life violated, although no biological organism has been killed. Take note that the individual continues to exist, despite the violation. Hence, when antiabortionists talk about the “right to life,” they focus primarily on the continued existence of an organism without considering the experiences and other mental states that are critical to existence. Tooley believes that the correct meaning of the “right to life” supposes ...