I will be touching bases on your typical cliché topic, abortion. Abortion has been an argument that has been around for quiet a while and it is a topic where we can agree to disagree. This topic has never actually quiet come to me on this kind of level that it did when I viewed the arguments of two authors. Both their arguments were greatly supported by what their strong beliefs on pro-life versus pro-choice. The reason why I chose to talk about this topic was because I used to be very blunt about my belief in abortion. I have always been pro-life and very closed minded about hearing the other side, being pro-choice. But Warren had very great points in arguing her views on pro-choice. Her arguments and beliefs behind her idea of following pro-choice had me much more lenient on seeing both sides. Now that being said, I do not have a side as to which I agree with only because both these authors created great points as to see why they each have their belief.
Before I get into talking about each author and their arguments. With this topic the way we referred to a person is as an entity of moral significance or also known as personhood. Let me start off with Noonan. He is pro-life. He starts by drawing that we can distinguish a fertilized egg and a newborn but the movement from one to another is continuous. The point he is trying to make across is that anyone trying to “attempt to draw a line” at moral significance would be random. Meaning that anyone who decides to draw a line or decide who or what moral significance is would be a personal choice of mind. One of his best beliefs is that conception would be the only reasonable place where moral significance would be identified. Which brings me to Noonan’s argument of personhood being based on biological or genetic. Biologically he means viability, which is a point of development prior to which the developing embryo cannot be removed from a women’s body and be expected to survive, also known as biological dependence. Biological and genetically over all he is saying that a moral significance needs to be biologically dependent. Now as far as an argument from a pro-choice would be that the embryo lacks a specific characteristic therefore fails to be a person. The term that is used for the characteristic it lacks is sentience. Sentience is the ability to experience joy or suffering so therefore the embryo not being an actual person.
On the contrary with Warren’s view of pro-choice, Warren first touches bases upon biological personhood. Warren states two points; one being it is wrong to kill and innocent human being therefore the embryo fetus is an innocent human being. From my understanding she is giving Noonan that benefit of the doubt on his term of stating his opinion biologically. With that given point Warren concludes her two points with it is wrong to kill a fetus biological speaking. But there was a point that Warren made that became Warren’s most important point. Human being is ambiguous. This became Warrens most important idea she had great belief and information to back up on why human being is unclear. Meaning that the belief of what a human being is, is still arguable. In Warrens words human is explained in two ways. The first is biologically human, meaning that all members of our species are humans and no other species can be human. The second is morally human, defining it as an entity of moral significance. All in all Warren condenses both ideas as this, “human being has to mean morally human because if it means biologically human it begs the questions.” “However, human being has to mean biologically human or else it begs the question.” Warren believes that, what is really needed so this whole idea of human is non-questionable is a begging promise of connecting biological to moral humanity. Moreover, Warren gets into the idea of Psychological personhood. For this purpose Warren speaks upon five points on psychological personhood. Which are consciousness or awareness, reasoning, self motivated activity, communication, and the possession and self-concepts. Now a negative point made toward that is “an entity that exhibits these cannot be said to be a person.” This opposing point comes from the biological human because bio humanity is neither enough or is it necessary for personhood. This is where Warren disagrees and says this and I quote, “if bio humanity is sufficient then every biological person would be a home.” Warren says this to conclude her argument, “something can be bio human yet not be a person.”
By all means, both authors had great arguments and beliefs to back up what they were trying to make their point across. I liked that both authors did show the counter argument and already had a statement to argue against the counter argument. As far a Noonan and his belief in pro-life, that is where I started too. I was always closed minded about abortion and never really saw into depth of what the other side can be. With Noonan though his arguments were good. I just was not quiet clear on his whole idea of drawing distinction between a fertilized egg and a newborn. The only idea I can conclude with this statement is connecting that idea with viability, where a developing fetus when taking out of a woman’s body it cannot be expected to survive. Therefore Noonan’s point in my eyes and to my understanding is that the fetus is biological dependence. Now whether I agree with Noonan’s idea or not has been tough over all to pick a side. I am definitely not one siding for these to author’s. I am just being very open minded about it. But Noonan’s strongest point was the idea of the fetus or embryo being biologically dependent.
Without a doubt, when reading Warrens it was a stronger connection. I felt as there was more information and more argument as to what point Warren was trying to get across. Let me start off my mentioning that Warren was pro-choice. Like I did mention before I was totally against pro-choice mindsets and everyone who thought that it was ok to kill an innocent life. But when we were discussing both Noonan’s and Warren’s reading, I felt some what mutual with the whole their beliefs. Although Warren had a whole lot of more back up to the argument it still was not enough to reel me in to being solid with being pro-choice. But what I would mention that I liked from Warren was when Noonan had the pro-choice argument of “the embryo or fetus lacks a particular characteristic prior to a certain point of development thereby fails to be a person.” Warren being pro-choice backs it up with psychological personhood. Psychological is the fetus or embryo lacks in being conscious or having awareness then in Warren’s eyes it fails to be a person.