Abortion, Part 2: Mary Anne Warren's Pro-Choice Argument

Summary

This lecture explores Marianne Warren's pro-choice argument on abortion, which asserts that a fetus is not a person in the moral sense and therefore does not have full moral rights. Warren distinguishes between being genetically human and morally human, using criteria like consciousness and self-awareness to define personhood. She critiques common pro-choice arguments and examines the ethical dilemma of infanticide, acknowledging a tension between her stance on abortion and the moral status of infants. Despite justifications for not killing infants, Warren struggles to establish a principled distinction between abortion and infanticide.

Takeaways

• 😀 Marianne Warren argues that a fetus, while genetically human, is not a person and therefore does not have full moral rights.
• 😀 The central question in the abortion debate, according to Warren, is how to define the humanity of a being and determine personhood.
• 😀 Warren distinguishes between being a human being in the genetic sense (belonging to the species Homo sapiens) and being a person in the moral sense.
• 😀 Personhood, for Warren, requires certain characteristics like consciousness, rationality, self-motivated activity, complex communication, and self-awareness.
• 😀 A fetus is not considered a person by Warren because it lacks most of these characteristics, especially in early stages of pregnancy.
• 😀 Warren critiques common pro-abortion arguments, such as the claim that restricting abortion would have social consequences, by asserting that they miss the fundamental issue of personhood.
• 😀 The argument that a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy based on property rights ('my body, my choice') is rejected by Warren, who argues that property rights do not justify killing a non-person.
• 😀 Warren contends that some genetically human beings, like those in a persistent vegetative state, are not persons because they lack the psychological capacities required for personhood.
• 😀 The concept of personhood is not exclusive to humans—Warren suggests that non-human entities like self-aware robots or intelligent aliens could potentially be considered persons.
• 😀 Warren struggles with the issue of infanticide, as her criteria for personhood would also justify the killing of newborns, yet she does not believe infanticide is morally acceptable, highlighting a contradiction in her argument.

Q & A

What is the central issue in the abortion debate according to Marianne Warren?

The central issue, according to Marianne Warren, is determining the humanity of a fetus. She argues that understanding whether a fetus is a person with moral rights is key to the abortion debate.

How does Marianne Warren distinguish between being a human being and being a person?

Warren distinguishes between being genetically human (a human being in a genetic sense) and being morally human (a person in the moral sense). She argues that genetic humanity alone does not grant personhood or moral rights.

What are the key characteristics that Warren believes define personhood?

Warren defines personhood based on the following criteria: consciousness and capacity to feel pain, reasoning and problem-solving ability, self-motivated activity (free will), complex communication capacity, and self-awareness or self-concept.

What is Warren’s response to the pro-abortion argument that restricting abortion leads to negative social consequences?

Warren argues that even if restricting abortion leads to negative social consequences, such as more children being born into poverty, this does not justify abortion if the fetus is a human being, as abortion would still be morally wrong.

How does Warren critique the 'my body, my choice' argument for abortion?

Warren critiques the 'my body, my choice' argument by stating that property rights do not give one the right to kill. She uses the example of inviting someone onto your property and then claiming the right to kill them, which she argues is morally wrong.

Why does Warren believe that being genetically human does not necessarily grant a fetus personhood?

Warren believes that being genetically human is neither necessary nor sufficient for being a person. She argues that personhood requires psychological traits such as consciousness and reasoning, which a fetus lacks in the early stages of pregnancy.

What challenge does Warren face when considering the moral status of late-term fetuses and infanticide?

Warren faces the challenge of justifying why infanticide (the killing of a newborn) is wrong, but late-term abortion is permissible. Since late-term fetuses and newborns have similar person-like qualities, she struggles to explain this moral distinction.

How does Warren address the potential issue of justifying infanticide in her argument?

Warren suggests that while a newborn infant might not fully meet the criteria for personhood, it is close enough to require strong justification for killing. She acknowledges the discomfort around infanticide but does not provide a principled way to justify why it is worse than abortion.

What is Warren’s view on the moral status of a fetus at different stages of pregnancy?

Warren argues that a fetus does not have personhood or full moral rights, particularly in the early stages of pregnancy. Later in pregnancy, the fetus may gain certain qualities like consciousness, but Warren still does not consider it a person with the right to life.

What problem does Warren face with her argument regarding late-term abortion and infanticide?

The problem Warren faces is that her reasoning for late-term abortion being morally acceptable does not easily apply to infanticide. She struggles to distinguish why it is acceptable to abort a fetus in the late stages of pregnancy but not to kill an infant after birth, given their similar developmental status.