The assigned readings for today included chapters 3 and 4 of the book “Reconstructing Motherhood and Disability in the Age of ‘Perfect’ Babies”. The third chapter of the book is a discussion of the idea of “personhood”, and how disability affects personhood in babies with disabilities (Landsman, 2009). The fourth chapter is a discussion of parental diagnosis, the perceived infallibility of doctors, and denial vs. hopeful outlooks (Landsman, 2009).
Based on what I have learned about personhood in other courses, it is the idea that a fetus should be prescribed the right to live, like any other “person”. Personhood laws originally came into being to protect pregnant women and their growing fetus from domestic violence/physical abuse. Common knowledge of a particularly grizzly case in which a woman suffering from mental illness attacked a pregnant woman and cut her open in an attempt to steal her baby is said to have been a driving force behind these laws. Much of the controversy that has arisen since is due to the use of personhood laws to arrest and convict mothers who,
…show more content…
I find the fact that personhood laws could be so easily twisted to criminalize poor and minority women incredibly frustrating. However, after reading the third chapter of “Reconstructing Motherhood”, I have found myself questioning some of my pro-choice beliefs. Landsman writes “…within the culture there are gradations of personhood, with (dis)ability a criterion for determining a child’s level of personhood…” (Landsman, 2009). I think this is something that the general public never really considers. As stated in the book, many of the pro-choice use disability as an argument in the case for abortion (Landsman, 2009). Is that really a justifiable argument? There is an immense difference between aborting a child because they will not live past birth and aborting a child because they have
Rather than stating the argument, Willis poses it as a question, “Are the fetuses the moral equivalent of born human beings?” (Abortion Debate 76), thus showing how modern feminists can only support one side of the argument in their chosen stance, and cause limitations by doing so. In doing so, Willis shows how to some “extent… we objectify our enemy and define the terms of our struggle as might makes right, the struggle misses its point” (Ministries of Fear 210), which implies that feminists have completely missed the point of the argument by getting caught up in an answer. Rather than looking for a compromise or gray area, they exert their stance as the only solution that woman can have. Willis also shows how feminists fundamentally “see the primary goal of feminism as freeing omen from the imposition of so called ‘male values’, and creating an alternative culture based on ‘female values’”
Another way of looking at it is by identifying legal and moral status calculated in constitutional frameworks. A baby is considered to acquire both legal and moral standings when they exist as a separate person. Numerous questions
Analysis Perhaps the most popular argument made against abortion is that the fetus is a person. Based on this assertion, the fetus has a moral right to life. The problem that Thomson identifies is that most of the anti-abortionist and pro-life supporters rely solely on this aspect for their argument and do not rationalize any other matter.
(Roe v. Wade, 1973) In forbidding many federal and state restrictions on abortion in the United States, the Roe versus Wade case sparked a nationwide debate that continues to this day about matters including whether, and to what degree, abortion should be lawful, who should decide its legitimacy, what methods should the Supreme Court use in constitutional decision, and what should the role of religious and ethical observations in the governmental sphere be. Roe versus Wade redesigned national politics, separating much of the United States of America into pro-choice and anti-abortion factions, while triggering popular movements on both sides. But nevertheless abortion still to this day continues to be a right protected by the 14th Amendment.
However this fuels the social attitude in which women must seek permission, when many consider abortion to be a right which all women should have access too. This poses the question of if limiting the rights of women is ever justifiable in the best interests of the baby, the roman catholic church argue that a foetus is a person from the moment of conception this means that they to are entitled to the same rights of the mother and to have an abortion is to murder a living being. From this perspective it is apparent that they argue it is justifiable to put the rights of the foetuses; despite this point when a foetus is though to gain rights is a key point to this argument. As personhood would determine when a foetus is able to gain rights, although critics would argue that even still this does not warrant them to have the same full rights that the mother would
Mary Anne Warren establishes a belief that a fetus’s right to live is overruled by an expecting mother’s right to an abortion because it is not a technically a true person until it is born. Warren supports her argument by saying that a nearly full-developed fetus is no more significant than a small embryo because “…it is not fully conscious… it cannot reason or communicate message… and has no self-awareness” (Warren, page 499). In contrast, our text states that “…some fetuses develop the capacity to survive outside the womb…” after nearly being two-thirds fully developed; this means that a fetus is ultimately capable of communication and awareness through it’s movements (Munson and Lague, page 469).
Abortion is Wrong After a Month At what point in time would you make killing a child legal? Do you think it is right to walk in the middle of the street and shoot someone in the head? It’s illegal and you would be sent straight to jail, but having an abortion and killing the baby that is living and growing inside you is “your right” even when it’s basically the same thing. You shouldn’t bring a baby into the world just to have an abortion and kill it.
A life of severe disability, is not a life worth living. Therefore, an infant born with a severe physical or cognitive impairment should not be allowed to live. Or any person for that matter, regardless of age who suffers from a severe cognitive disability should be lawfully killed. At least that is a belief held by a certain professor at Princeton University. Harriet McBryde Johnson, a disability advocate and lawyer had the opportunity to debate these beliefs with Professor Peter Singer.
Patrick Lee and Robert George assert that abortion is objectively immoral. One of Lee and George’s main reason for coming to this conclusion is that human embryos are living human beings. This essentially validates that abortion is indeed the process of killing a human. Another main point said by the two is a rebuttal to a common argument used in favor of abortion, which states that a potential mother has full parental responsibilities only if she has voluntarily assumed them. The rebuttal to this was that the potential mother does indeed have special responsibilities to raise the child.
In “A Defense of Abortion,” Judith Thomson argues with a unique approach regarding the topic of abortion. For the purpose of the argument, Thomas agrees to go against her belief and constructs an argument based on the idea that the fetus is a person at conception. She then formulates her arguments concerning that the right to life is not an absolute right. There are certain situations where abortion is morally permissible. She believes that the fetus’s right to life does not outweigh the right for the woman to control what happens to her own body.
Mary Anne Warren In her seminal article “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion,” argues that because neither the embryo nor fetus nor infants possesses the cognitive traits of personhood, they are akin in moral value to a fish and have no more moral rights than a newborn guppy. 2. Judith Jarvis Thomson In her influential article “A Defense of Abortion,” Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that, even if we fully grant fetuses the status of persons, akin to that of any other person, this alone does not necessitate the moral impermissibility of abortion.
For example, if there is a complication in pregnancy and the mother can suffer because of the child, I think it is ok to do abortion. It is important to understand the various ideas that go behind abortion. The right of an abortion for a mother should be left on her own decision as the mother knows best about her condition. She is going to be the 'host body ' for the baby, even though her own, for nine months and according to Thompson, the mother should have the right to decide if she wants to foster and go through with the ordeal. But still, there are also a strong debate going on about the human rights of the child:
The prenatal diagnostics and prenatal screening being routine procedures should be considered as advantage of modern medicine. It helps to reveal wide spectrum of fetus abnormal conditions, but not only congenital defects and malformations. Early detection of many of them could help to perform surgical correction and necessary management as soon as possible in order to save newborns’ lives. On the other hand, this method is widely discussed and it has many opponents, and in some countries prenatal diagnostic procedures is not considered now as a screening method. Main ethical issues are terminations of pregnancies in case of malformations, which may be supposed as eugenical abortion, inform consent and problem of decision-making process.
The intrinsic dignity of any human being or person, no matter at which stage or condition in their life (i.e. an unborn or Down syndrome child, a paraplegic or an adult with Alzeimer’s disease) can only rest on the fact of having been created by God in his own image, on who one is, not on what one can autonomously do. If we do not think of persons as creatures with an inmortal spirit and wanted individually by God, not mere accidents of a biological chain, we may fall into an undesired dualism separating body (which may be there in its integrity) and conscious awareness which may be
(Tanner) Pro-choice defenders also say that it is the woman 's right to choose to have the baby or not, forgetting the baby 's rights. The life of a human being begins at the moment of conception, and it is not the fetus´s fault if the mother wasn 't ready to have a baby or if the situation in which baby was conceived wasn 't ideal. For example, if the baby is conceived by rape, the baby should not pay the consequences of other people, he or she has not done anything wrong .”Compassion for the mothers is extremely important, but it is never