When, If Ever, Is Abortion Permissible?

One of the most controversial issues present in today's society is abortion. Abortion is the termination of a fetus done purposely to prevent the birth of a child. Since abortions are now easier, less dangerous and more accessible than they once were; they have become the target of debate in every aspect of our lives. The issue of abortion has caused many heated debates in politics, religion and society in general; yet both sides seem to only see one side of the picture and avoid the issue as whole.

One way of examining whether abortion is right or wrong is to look at whether or not the fetus is a person or not. This evaluation is done by Mary Anne Warren, in which she determines a set of criteria that both pro-abortionists and anti-abortionists can agree upon. Warren states that in order to be considered a fetus must: "have consciousness of objects and events, reasoning, self-motivated activity, capacity to communicate and the presence of self-concept and self-awareness." Using these criteria, Warren determines that the fetus has not reached personhood and therefore, is not guaranteed the right to life. Thus, she believes that at least until birth the fetus has no moral status and a lacks a right to life. (Warren)

Warren's argument may seem a bit flawed because her criteria do not provide a clear cut way to distinguish between the fetuses in the stages of pregnancy or perhaps even the infant himself. According to her criteria, a newborn infant would not have a significant right to life, either; however, according to her, killing it would be wrong because there are people willing to care and provide for it's well being. But what about a baby that is aborted, are there not people willing to adopt and care for it? Another argument that she makes is that to be considered a person a human must have rational thought. Clearly a fetus does not have rational thought, but how would it compare to others in very compromising conditions. For example, individuals that are mentally ill or in a comma may not have rational thought but they are by all means considered people and guaranteed certain rights. Considering all the uncertainties in her argument, using her criteria of categorizing the personhood of an individual or fetus seems quite mistaken and overall irrelevant to the abortion debate.

Another philosopher, Judith Thompson, provides a good argument for abortion because she states that the personhood of the fetus does not matter. Instead she argues that a woman should have complete control over her own body. She uses an example in which we are kidnapped for the purpose of saving a famous violinist. We are connected to the violinist so that he may share the use of our kidneys and in order for the violinist to live we must remain connected to him for nine months. If we disconnect ourselves before the nine months is up he will die. Of course it would be nice of us to do this act for the violinist; however, Thompson feels that it is obvious that we are under no obligation to do so. She then claims that this situation is similar to pregnancy because the fetus never asked to use a woman's body, especially in cases of rape, or when reasonable precautions were taken to avoid pregnancy. Therefore, according to Thomson it is woman's right to terminate a pregnancy since it is in her body. (Thompson)

Critics may argue that Thompson's example is far-fetched and extreme. Also the person plugged into the violinist was kidnapped; therefore, they had no choice. In most cases, however, women have a choice of whether or not to sexual relations or not and understand that they are risk for pregnancy. The violist example mostly pertains to cases of rape in which the woman had no choice in the situation. However, if one analyzes the violinist example from a different viewpoint the example seems more relevant. Just as the violinist depends on the other person for their liver, the fetus depends solely on the mother for survival. In both cases, the violinist and the fetus are not viable; meaning that if they are removed from the other person they cannot live apart from them. This further supports the argument that neither the fetus nor the violinist has their own right to life because they are solely dependent on the life of another.

Even though both Warren and Thomson are both pro-abortion, they present their arguments in two unique ways. However, if the arguments are compared side by side, Thompson's argument would most likely come out stronger. Instead of focusing on issues that involve personhood, Thompson makes a clear point for the rights a person has to his own body. Thompson states that the state of the fetus is not important; all that really matter is the rights of a person to their body. Warren's argument at times seems irrational because it is hard to determine when certain criteria of personhood are met. Would a two day fetus have the same right to personhood as an eight month fetus? According to Warren, they would; and by some "miracle" when the fetus is delivered it suddenly gains all the criteria and rights of personhood that he had not had previously. This is the point where Warren, loses some of credibility to the reader because some of the point she makes do not seen rational.

Some people, even those that think abortion is morally wrong, support the argument that abortion is morally permissible in cases of rape. However, this seems very contradictory of those that argue that the fetus has a strict "right to life". If these people believe that the fetus is living and has an exclusive right to life then why would rape cause them to change there position? This is because they have now excused abortion with powerful consequential arguments as a result of having a baby out of rape.

Another reason that may justify abortion in the case of rape