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’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 its 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 Thomson, 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 dies. Of course it would be nice of us to do this act for the violinist; however, Thomson 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. Critics may argue that Thomson’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 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 pro-abortion, they present their arguments in two unique ways. But, if the arguments are compared side by side, Thomson’s argument would most likely come out stronger. Instead of focusing on issues that involve personhood, Thomson makes a clear point or 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 in the eyes of these people is both concerns for the mother and for society as a whole. If there is no access to abortion, a victim of rape may have to live with the horrible memory of a child that was brought on by rape and be forced to relive her brutal attack. The child would then grow up and become an unwanted member of society perhaps because of the lack of love and care from his parents. Clearly, the act of rape was an infringement upon the victim and therefore, some believe that the child that is a product of this is infringing on the women's rights also. If looked upon from a societal viewpoint, the fetus born of rape would go against the utilitarian viewpoint of the greatest good for the greatest number and most likely more people would benefit from this fetus not even being born.
However, if a person is pro-life then he needs to stick with that viewpoint fully. If one believes that the fetus has a "right to life" then why should it matter if the woman was raped or not? Does that give her the right to take away the fetus' life? The fetus is just as innocent as the raped woman, forced into a situation she did not ask for. If the fetus is living then it be protected under its "right to life" therefore, there should be no distinction made for cases of rape or other circumstances among those people that are anti-abortionists. I think it is not right to infringe upon certain views about abortion onto others. It should not matter whether you are pro-abortion or anti-abortion, instead it is important to be to able to carry through our views to all circumstances and not make certain exceptions. It is also important to back up our views with solid reasons for our decisions. In my opinion, the view of Thompson, who says that it is always the woman right to choose what happens to her body in all circumstances is much more convincing than the anti-abortionist who says that fetus' have a right and then states that exceptions should be made for abortion. Since we live in a nation build primarily on the principle of democracy, I feel that it is our right to be entitled to our opinions. However, despite the fact that we all have our own opinions on the issue when it all comes to abortion each woman should be given to decide what happens to her body. Just as we do not have control over who moves next door to us or what your fellow neighbors may say or believe; we should not try to infringe upon a woman's right to her own body. After all if we are all guaranteed rights under the Constitution do those rights not include a right to our bodies? Therefore, when it comes to the abortion law in the United States, I believe that abortion should be allowed no matter what the circumstances are. Abortion should be a right guaranteed to all women if they choose to do so. Since the woman, is already a member of American society her rights should be preserved over the potential rights of the fetus, which still depends on her to sustain its life. Even though abortion is an issue that requires some serious thought, each person is still entitled to their own views. However, the decision of whether to have an abortion or not should not come from society or the government, instead from the individual. The woman who is considering abortion has a right to do what she feels is best her. After all it is her body and her life that are in consideration.