Word Count: 1456

Sandra Phillips
Phil 111-503
10/24/09

Morality of Abortion

In my exploration of the morality of abortion, I read the works of three

philosophers with differing opinions: John Noonan, Mary Warren, and Don Marquis.

Noonan believes that abortion is immoral because life begins at conception. Warren

believes that humanity is not acquired until after birth and therefore abortion is not

an immoral practice. Marquis Believes that determining a cutoff for when a fetus is

considered human is not necessary. He assumes that the fetus has the rights of a

human, and argues that abortion is always immoral. I will discuss each position and

decide for myself which philosopher uses the best approach in determining whether

or not abortion is a moral practice.

In An Almost Absolute Value in History, John Noonan discusses how he

reached the conclusion that abortion is immoral. Whether or not a fetus is

considered a human being that has rights depends on how you establish the

humanity. The important question to ask is when a man is considered a man? For

Noonan, humanity begins at conception. His viewpoint is quite simply summed up

in my favorite quote from An Almost Absolute Value in History. He says, “If you are

conceived by human parents, you are human.” To back up his argument, Noonan

discusses some of the criticisms for it. The viability of the fetus, whether the fetus

has had experiences, the emotions and sensations of adults toward the fetus, and

the social visibility of the fetus are some common propositions for determining

when a fetus is considered human.

The viability of a fetus is determined by whether or not it can survive

independent from its mother. Noonan argues that a fetus can be sustained
synthetically in an incubator. Another thing that he takes issue with is that even an

infant or a small child is dependent on its mother to some extent. It would not be

able to survive without the care of another human being. If a child becomes more

independent with age, Noonan does believe that this growth has any effect on the

child’s status of humanity.

The idea that experiences and memories determine the humanity of a person

is an interesting one. However, Noonan dissembles this idea by stating that

embryos have experiences. As early as eight weeks an embryo can be observed

reacting to touch.

Noonan does not have much appreciation for the argument that says the

feelings of the parents toward the fetus determine its humanity. Just because it is

more difficult to lose a child than a pregnancy, does not make one less human than

the other. Noonan uses the example of racism to prove that one person’s “feelings”

for another to not determine their humanity.

The last argument Noonan addresses is the idea that a fetus is only human if

it is socially perceived as so. A fetus does not yet have the ability to communicate

and is not considered a member of society, thereby losing its humanity. Not only

does Noonan not agree with this idea, he thinks it is dangerous. If the fetus is not

human because it is not socially visible, then any group of people can be

dehumanized based on social recognition.

Noonan’s main point is that conception is the only reasonable cutoff for a

fetus to be considered a human being. That is the point where it receives the

genetic code which is a very powerful thing. The genetic code will determine

everything about the fetus from its personality to its potential for knowledge. Most

importantly, the genetic code declares the fetus a human fetus.

 Noonan addresses the very important issue of when life and humanity

actually begin. I think that the only reasonable and definitive cutoff points for

determining humanity are birth and conception. Noonan gives four very reasonable

supporting arguments for why humanity begins at birth. I believe that he offers the

argument that is the most sound because he is able to refute every challenge

against his opinion.

Mary Warren uses a similar approach in The Moral Significance of Birth, but it

is not the same. Just like Noonan, she looks for a cutoff point that a fetus becomes

human after. However, Warren believes that the cutoff is after birth. She does not

believe the there is much of a difference between a late term abortion and

infanticide because, developmentally speaking, there is not a huge difference

between a newborn and a fetus towards the end of a pregnancy. Sentience and

self-awareness are what Warren considers important to being considered human.

If a being has sentience, which make it capable of experiencing things like

pain or pleasure, then it has moral right. Warren agrees that fetuses and newborns

show signs of sentience because the turn away from bright lights and react to

sound. However, they are “less highly sentient than older human beings.” While

they do have some moral standing, Warren says that they do not have a greater

moral standing than older human beings.

Warren doubts that even though newborns have sensory experiences, it is

unlikely that they have any kind of self-awareness. She argues that it is worse to

kill a being that is self-aware, because it is cruel to kill a human being who wants to

go on living. So if infanticide is committed, it should be done right after birth

(before the baby becomes self-aware).

 Warren’s focus is that defending or protecting the right of a fetus to live

would eliminate any independence and self-rule in the life of a pregnant woman.

Every action would be regulated. Since the fetus and the pregnant woman cannot

have an equal right to life “inside a single human skin,” then the more highly

sentient being has the moral standing. After birth, however, both the mother and

the baby have equal moral standing.

I understand the thought process that Warren follows. It makes sense that

she would consider the characteristics that make a person human and compare

them to a fetus and a newborn to see if they match up to her definition of human.

However, she completely lost me when her thought process determined that

infanticide (in certain situations) could be acceptable. I understand the opinion that

all abortions are immoral and that all fetuses have the right to life; I understand the

opinion that some abortions (late term) abortions are immoral; and I understand the

opinion that all abortions are moral and women should have the right to make

choice that affect their own body. What I do not understand, is the idea that after a

baby is born, there are situations where infanticide is acceptable. For this reason, I

cannot support her argument.

In Why Abortion is Immoral, Don Marquis differs from Noonan and Warren in

that the cutoff for humanity does not matter to him. He argues that abortion is

immoral in every situation. Marquis does not write about whether the fetus is

human, like Noonan and Warren did. Instead he assumes that a fetus is human and

to take away its life is morally wrong with almost no exceptions. Marquis is not

concerned with humanity of the fetus but the immorality of killing any human being.

He argues that the morality of this issue does not rest on where the fetus is

developmentally.
 Marquis says, “What makes killing wrong is neither its effect on the murderer

nor its effect on the victim’s friends or relatives, but its effect on the victim. The

loss of one’s life is one of the greatest losses one can suffer.” His main argument is

that losing a future is not what makes killing wrong. This can be manipulated in

certain situations. For example, someone could assume a child does not have a

bright future or someone who is terminally ill might not want to face their future.

Marquis says that killing is wrong because it “inflicts the greatest loss on the

victim.”

I think that Marquis has taken a very interesting and unique approach in this

discussion of the morality of abortion. Instead of determining when humanity

begins, he chooses to assume humanity and boldly declare that abortion is always

immoral. That being said, I do not think that he offered the best approach for

dealing with abortion. He did not have a very comprehensive discussion of the

topic.

Overall, I believe that John Noonan had the best argument addressing the

morality of abortion. His approach to determining humanity was the best one

because he proved it by discussing all of the arguments against his opinion. I was

not as impressed with Warren or Marquis. It was Noonan that had a very good

defense for each challenge of his opinion, and I completely support his argument.