"It is concluded that the fetus is, or anyway that we had better say it is, a person from the moment of conception. But this conclusion does not follow. Similar things might be said about the development of an acorn into an oak tree, and it does not follow that acorns are oak trees, or that we had better say they are"(Thomson 352). This comparison is completely unfair in this context. Acorns are not oak trees in the same way that fetuses are not adults.
English claims, “person” is a cluster concept. What is typical of persons includes biological factors, psychological factors, rationality factors, social factors and legal factors. In each category, we get features that, though typical, may not be central by themselves. These lists of typical features are just that; they don't function as a checklist that we can use to assess the personhood of the fetus. “There are necessary conditions: for example being alive; you can't be a person if you aren't alive.
"In the end, it's possible that human beings may die so that embryos will live. This is not an ethical dilemma. It is an ethical travesty" (Cohen, 2001, p. 128). Research
And with adoption, there is always the possibility that the baby could go to a family who is not skillful enough to take care of the child either. However, either way the baby at least gets a chance to grow up and make its own choices in life. Even though a child may not have the ideal upbringing, it’s not impossible for him or her to change their life around and in affect change their world. What would have happened if George Washington’s mother or Benjamin Franklin’s mother decided she did not want to keep George or Benjamin? Think how differently our country would be today.
cannot be broken) primary precepts to make moral decisions. One of these primary precepts, “preservation of innocent life”, leads to abortion being forbidden. Natural law observes the sanctity of life thesis, considering an embryo / foetus to be a person. However, although Natural law respects the sanctity of life, it is by no means a religious theory, for it is based on objective truth. Despite Natural Law forbidding abortion, there is a doctrine of double effect that can be implemented.
She gives an example to show a difference in the nature of embryo and a person. She compares an embryo to an acorn and a person to an oak tree, saying that although acorn grew from the oak tree and it can become one in the future, it does not mean that it is already an oak tree. This clearly shows that she does not believe that the
The fact that the parents could, and even would, deny their infant son such basic needs simply due to the fact he had been declared mentally retarded seems a major ethical faux pas. Simply based on the five focal virtues created by Beuchamp and Childress (Darr), there were multiple areas where the case of Baby Boy Doe failed to meet these criteria. Compassion could be argued, in that possible compassion for the parents may be cited, but compassion for the infant was woefully absent. Discernment, rather viewed as judgment of sensitivity, failed for the infant, although sensitivity toward the parents could be argued. Trustworthiness and integrity were adhered to as best as possible during the time period in which the case presented.
Given that Susan did not necessarily plan to have a child at that stage in her life would not make it fair that it be put upon her. I strongly agree with Thomson’s view that the fact that she didn’t offer her body to have a child within her, she then has no obligation to keep the fetus alive. And for her to have an abortion may be a bit selfish and inconsiderate of the baby’s potential, but it would not be unjust for her to do so. In Tammy’s case, after having decided to keep the child, to decide to get an abortion so late into the pregnancy is in fact unjust. By doing so, she taking away the fetus’ life because it would be so inconvenient for her in the short run of her life.
According to Warren, a fetus is human but not a person. She talks about the word “human being” and how people today confuse the genetic and moral sense of the word. According to Warren, just because one is human, it doesn’t automatically make one a person. She states that a fetus is not part of the "moral community," meaning people, which would give them an equal moral right. According to Warren, “the moral community," decide if a fetus can become part of the moral community.
In Warren's argument the ability to communicate is vital to being a human being. This is one where the fetus probably loses the most as they have no real means to communicate with the outside world. At best the argument can be made that their kicking is them trying to communicate. But this is another instance and probably the best one where it could be used to carry her position forward to the point of “aborting” people who are far beyond the womb. Let is take Doctor Steven Hawking for example.