The ethics of abortion has been one of the much debated topics in the society. Different positions have been made with regard to this controversial issue. Different arguments and ideas have also been tried to define to possibly elucidate the moral issue of abortion.

One argument that has been debated is the Fetus being a person. To define what a person is, is not so simple. Though there are some factors that entail what a person is. These include biological factors, psychological factors, rationality, social factors and legal factors. Some factors may be present yet cannot be considered as a person. On other cases, some factors maybe absent but can still be considered a person. That is why these are only, more or less, features of what constitute a person.


1. Suppose a fetus is considered a person, is abortion permissible?

Take a look at this argument:

Fetus is an innocent person.
Killing an innocent person is always wrong.
Therefore, killing a fetus is always wrong.

The validity of this argument lies on the situation in which the killing may take place. Fetus is considered to be an innocent person. Killing an innocent person is always wrong but it is not always the case. There are cases that an innocent person can do harm to others like the cases presented in Jane English’ article. As Jane equated these cases to the pregnancy of a woman, this follows that the killing of fetus is not always wrong. Conservatives have overlooked these possibilities. For them, abortion is considered murder. In some cases, abortion is justified depending on the severity of the threat that the fetus may inflict to the mother. Therefore, if the fetus will pose serious threat to the pregnant women’s well being, life, health or mental or physical, then the mother is justified in doing so.

2. Suppose a fetus is not considered a person, is abortion permissible?
The parallel set between a fetus, being a non-person, and animals, also being non-persons can justify the impermissibility of killing. As what the liberals have argued, women are free to do whatever they want in their body. Another argument is that the view of some that, a fetus, not being a person, is subject to treatment in anyway. But this line of argument seems to be invalid. You cannot just kill or torture animals or fetus, in that case, if it will unfavorably affect other people. Killing or torturing non-persons like the animals is no reason at all wrong. These cases are true in the assertion that we operate in a set of sympathies and attitudes towards others.

Abortion has always been a very controversial issue especially when it comes to moral and legal concerns. People have various views, which is highly influenced and affected by one’s culture, society, family or religion, on how they would perceive and understand it. For abortion is the termination of pregnancy, this brought about debates whether it is moral or immoral.

Jane English, a philosophy teacher at University of North Carolina, argues that the personhood status is not enough to solve the problem regarding the issue on abortion. If the fetus is considered a person, it does not automatically mean that abortion is wrong. On the other hand, if the fetus is not a person, it does not necessarily mean that abortion is acceptable. She, English, is on the moderate position wherein there are cases to be considered, there are cases to be thought hard that may give justice, on an ethical and legal bases, to an action, whether there is life involved or not. English is in the position wherein her view is focused on the mother’s perspective, permitting her to choose her life and protect herself by having an abortion. She is in the position wherein the mother has the right to choose what she thinks is best for her. Personal factors which are valid play a big role on the decision-making of the mother involved.

Another position on abortion is that of Don Marquis. He gave special attention on the wrongness of killing. On the first part of his article, he tried to distinguish the anti-abortionists from the pro-choicers. This lead to his conclusion that the anti-abortionists’ principle are too broad and the pro-choicers’ claims are too narrow. Marquis has a very strong claim that abortion is immoral because the fetus, on the process of development, even it is not considered as a human being on its early stages, has a right to live and experience the future like what people have. He claims that by having abortion, that valuable future-like-ours is deprived from him, which is considered wrong.

Susan Sherwin viewed abortion on the feminist’s perspective. She believes that the decision to be made is dependent on the decision made by the pregnant woman for she is the only one who knows what would be good for her. Women have their own freedom to choose whether or not she wants to abort the child. Sherwin had attached the women’s subordination , for when in any case, abortion is not made, the women would be left of all the responsibilities including the emotional and financial aspects. Also, economic opportunities for women would decrease which also adds to the subordination status of women. Sherwin also pointed out how the feminists view the fetus. It is important to really highlight that fetal development happens inside the woman’s body. For the fetus lives in the womb of the woman, the mother and the fetus have a social relationship, but the mother has more control on the relationship because the fetus is completely dependent on the mother. This makes the fetus to be not completely significant.

From these three different perspectives, I, from what I understand, support the claim made by Jane English. Not that I consider Marquis’ and Sherwin’s points of view as not correct but English had argued the better reasoning on the legal and moral aspects. I totally agree that abortion may be done if the reasons for abortion are completely valid, example would include harm on the mother. Just like the self-defense model, action can be performed based on the consequences it may bring to the life of the mother. If the benefits would prevail over the risks, then the action can be considered right.

I may not have the necessary justification to support my stand on the issue of abortion. I am simply against abortion. Yes, we all have our choices, choices we make that we think produce results which are best for our well-being. Some people say that is is justifyable for a pregnant woman to opt for an abortion only a on selected cases. Like for instance, a pregnant disabled woman chooses abortion after having known that the fetus she is carrying is deformed, not wanting her child to experience cruelty and limitations the world has to offer for being disabled; a pregnant teenager suffering from an unwanted pregnancy making her not yet ready to face the consequences; a married carreer woman who thinks that with her busy and modern life, 'there is no room for a baby'; a pregnant woman who thinks that the fetus she is carryingis a 'parasite' living in her womb, consuming all the nutrients within her body for nourishment; someone who thinks that since it is your body, you have the right to do everything you wish to do with your own body; or a person who believes in the so-called pro-choice who believes in the freedom to make choices necessary for a person's well-being.

Moreover, there are a lot of cases promoting the practice of abortion. Some would even say that since the fetus is just a 'mass of cells and tissues smaller than a finger nail', it does not yet satisfies the characersistics of a person or a thing possessing 'life'; a fetus cannot be considered a life, and therefore it is not yet a person. Now here comes the question of who and what is a person. Does a thing having life, may be considered a 'person'? Here also comes the issue of discussing the fine line between a fetus and a person. Some would even compare persons with animals; why is it that animals like dogs are prohibitted to be killed? Yet, is it okay to kill a person? an innocent person? or Is it okay to kill a fetus?

As an individual, I say that abortion is immoral. In the first place, the fetus did not have a choice to be inside a woman's womb. It is true however, that a fetus begins at a single mass of cells smaller than a fingernail. But the momment that it appears inside the woman's womb, while it i still a single mass of tissue, it signals the arrival of a new life. From the time that it is just a mass of cells and tissues, it is already a 'living' thing. So I do not believe with the contention that since it is a mass of cells thriving inside the woman's womb, it is not yet a life. In essence, we all know that a cell is a basic unit of life. Hence, from the moment that a single mass of cells and tissues developing into a fetus, there is already a life. And I believe that taking one's life (I am referring to persons and/or human beings) is immoral and is considered a crime. We all have our choices, we all have our rights, we all have the right to live, we don't have the right to take one's life as well. As quoted from one of the philosophers, “my right ends where your right begins.”

Distinguishing a fetus from a human being, or from a person, It is impossible to draw the line unless we can really define the meaning of what is really a person and a human being. The usual conception of people toward a person is someone who has the abitlities to resaon, think, act, live and judge what is moral from immoral, ethical from unethical. Usually, people believe that it is immoral to take a person's life. What about a fetus? Can you consider a fetus a person? Moreover, we cannot draw the line between a fetus and a person, but still it is not justifyable to kill a fetus, for a fetus will develop into what you call a 'person' or a 'human being', who can later reason, act, judge, think, and live only if you give him/her the chance. One more thing, it is not the choice of the fetus to be a single mass of cells thriving in a woman's body; it is not the choice of the fetus to appear just as that inside the woman's body. The fetus do have the right to be born, even though that in the first place, the fetus do not have the choice to be born. -de guzman

Abortion has remained one of the timeless issues in different societies due to its degree of moral permissibility. I concur on Don Marquis’ proposition that abortion is “morally impermissible”. With this connotation, I would like to point out several concepts and explanations in order to support my stand on the issue per se.
Let us first define what morality is. Morality is always connected with actions wherein one can define the measurement of its rightness or wrongfulness. My understanding of a moral act is when a person does not obstruct or disrupt not only his own rights and welfare but others as well. With this connotation, I believe that two or more people are always involved in terms of any moral act and hence it begins and ends not only with the self but also others’ wellbeing should be recognized. Abortion is immoral in the sense that the act alone suppresses the relationship of the mother and the baby. With abortion the mother defies the basic rights of the “living individual” to freedom, dignity and more importantly, life. Some say that a fetus is not considered a “living individual”. With that argument, let us all understand that different cultures of different societies have their own understanding of the concept of “where life really starts”. Some say that it starts from the very first day, some may argue that life starts in the 40th day and the like. But what is important is the fact that life is possible to start and with that proposition one may ask the question, “is the fetus a sort of being one can end and not be labeled as a wrong act”.
Another typical pro-choice stand would argue that even though abortion is labeled as an act of killing, it does not follow that it is immoral. Self-defense can be a gargantuan argument for pro-choice individuals. Self-defense is the act wherein one would defend one’s self to a certain degree whenever the person’s welfare is at stake. Self-defense is a right wherein everyone is entitled to. But the concept of self-defense is not inter-changeable to killing. Self-defense does not follow that one would take another’s life in an instant. Self-defense may involve inflicting pain to the person who tries to disrupt your welfare but it does not follow that you in the end planned to take his/her life. Self-defense generally does not purport killing all the time. With that explanation it follows that abortion is not an act of self-defense since there is no degree in which a mother can control to defend herself without basically killing the baby (or whatever you want to label it).
Abortion is an act that will always be morally impermissible. Not only does it promote killing, it involves the hindrance of the rights of every living individual to be free, to have dignity and to live. The mother should not only consider her own welfare but also the well being of the living individual inside her. The living individual has no reason to die since s/he has not made any mistake or whatsoever and with that supposition abortion is a means of escape for the mother and will never be justified as a moral act such as self-defense and the like.

Abortion is a very sensitive and critical issue that arise out of human relations and interactions. It has been responsible for dividing views and opinions and for arousing the consciousness of people regarding abortion. In the book, different approaches and perspectives were presented to provide an in depth understanding of the issue which will then help us decide the position that we are going to pursue. Specifically, the positions were the pro-choice, pro- life, pro- abortion. Pro- choice believes that a woman has the autonomy to control her body and that having an abortion is subject to the wishes of the woman. On the other hand, pro-life would automatically label abortion as murder because the fetus has the same rights as a full-blown human being. They believe that killing it is tantamount to murder. Lastly, pro-abortion believes that life begins at birth and that the fetus can’t be considered as a human being. Therefore, it is not wrong to kill it since it is not yet a human.
Jane English, a philosophy professor in North Carolina, argues that “the abortion issue can’t be decided simply by examining the personhood status of the fetus because our concept of a person is not sharp enough to bear the weight of the entire moral debate over abortion.” Her argument assumes that the main contention of pro and anti abortion is whether or not the fetus is a person. Using conceptual analysis, defining and clarifying the meaning of a person is important. Many people have tried to define what a person is. Among the characteristics they have given are: persons are rational, self- aware, ability to communicate, to relate to other people. However, by defining what a person is, it is inevitable to either oversimplify it or to broaden its concept. Whether or not the fetus is a person or not entails a lot of implications. Let’s say that a fetus is a person. Pro-choice would vehemently oppose abortion because life begins after conception and that the fetus shares the same characteristics as a full blown human being. On the other hand, pro-abortion would argue that it is not always wrong to kill a person when the purpose for killing it is to defend one’s life from future harm and inconvenience. For example, teenage pregnancy would have a negative impact to the life of the mother since it would subject the mother to the early responsibility of caring for and supporting a baby.
Don Marquis also made a similar inquiry on the abortion issue. He argues that abortion is immoral except in some serious cases. Its major assumption is that a fetus is the “sort of being that its life is seriously wrong to end. Secondly, it assumes that ending the life of a fetus is equivalent killing an innocent adult human being. Thirdly, it assumes that killing is wrong. Lastly, it assumes that to inflict pain on other person is wrong. Using conceptual analysis in examining these claims, we should clarify the meaning of a “human being” which is quite ambiguous to define. If we are to categorize a human being as biologically composed of a myriad of cells, anti-abortion would have to prove that it is wrong to kill a human being and pro- abortion would have to prove that these biological characteristics of the fetus is not the same thing as the biological characteristics of an adult human being. Moreover, the assumption that killing is wrong would support the claims of anti-abortion. They would argue that the loss of one’s life is one of the greatest losses one could ever experience. Also, to kill someone is to deprive the person of experiencing how it is to feel alive, it also deprives the person of his/her future. On the other hand, pro-abortion would argue that it is not wrong to kill a fetus because it is not a human after all. However, the problem with this argument is that on some cases it is wrong to kill something even if it is not a human being i.e., pets and animals. I think that the assumptions presented by Don Marquis is agrees with my own opinion on the issue. I believe that to kill a fetus even if its personhood is not well established is a crime and shouldn’t be supported. But there are some cases wherein abortion is permissible i.e. when it poses a threat to a woman’s health.
Susan Sherwin authored the article “Feminist Analyses of Women and Abortion” presented the issue of abortion using feminist approach. Much of the literature on abortion focused on the fetus status as a person, for this reason the welfare and the rights of a woman are not given much emphasis. Sherwin argues that “the women concerned are in the best position to judge whether or not abortion is the appropriate response to a pregnancy.” It assumes that although women make mistakes in deciding matters regarding the issue, it is them who have the sole authority to evaluate and make judgments. Because pregnancy takes place in a woman’s body, it therefore entails a lot of important changes in a woman’s life therefore, it is only rightful to hand them the full accountability of their chosen decision. It also assumes that it is not only the fetus’ welfare involve on the issue but also the welfare of the woman. Unwanted and untimely pregnancies as a result of rape, of unprotected sex etc. pose difficulties and health risks on the part of the woman since she would be caring it in her womb for a long time. Nowadays, abortion seems to be the standard in saying that women have much freedom and power than ever before. According to Sherwin, “ an ethics that cares about women would recognize that abortion is often the only acceptable recourse for them. “ What then is the implication of this argument? One implication is that women wanting to have an abortion should have an access to legal and safe abortion procedure. Also, women who just have an abortion should not be subjected to the critical eyes of anti-abortion and shouldn’t be condemned for doing so. I think that the feminist approach is acceptable on some part because it recognizes the role and responsibility women played on the issue. It opposes the conventional patriarchal dominance in the society and aims to bring about changes to the way women are treated. However, I think that it is quite selfish for the part of the feminist to not recognize its responsibility in procreation. Equivalent weight should be given to both the female and the fetus.

Reading through the articles, I came across several inferences which some I will try to discuss here. However, before doing so, let us first define what an inference is and explain how checking its validity is done.
The first inference that we would be dealing with is from Don Marquis’ article which says,
If fetuses were deemed to be persons from the time of conception, fertilization, and/or implantation, then abortion would be permissible.
Fetuses were deemed to be persons from the time of conception, fertilization, and/or implantation. Therefore, abortion would be permissible.
For this specific inference, it is very clear that this one is valid by MODUS PONENS considering the rules of inference.

The second inference that we will be discussing is the claim that abortion is impermissible stemming from premises which say that (1) Abortion is killing and (2) Killing is impermissible. Analyzing the inference itself, we can see that it is valid through HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM. In order to see its validity more clearly, we can change it into this form:
Abortion is killing.
Killing is impermissible
Therefore, abortion is impermissible.

Another inference that we can consider is the one which says that a fetus is a human being having premises that say (1) A human being develops gradually and (2) A fetus develops gradually. Both premises seemed to be true, thus leading to a true conclusion. However, it does not satisfy any rule of inference that is why this inference remains to be invalid.

Also we can consider the inference made by the liberals which states that since a fetus does not become a person until birth, a woman may do whatever she pleases in and to her own body. This inference is said to be invalid for the reason that it is true that one can do anything to his/her own self; however, if it affects people adversely, it is not permissible. In addition, it is noteworthy that even if the liberals consider a fetus to be a non-person, it does not imply that you can do to it anything you wish. Let’s take for an example animals, they are non-persons, but killing them or torturing them is wrong.

Another inference that we can consider here is the one which concerns the killing of innocent persons. English say that a fetus is an innocent person and killing it is always wrong. Having that kind of inference, we can say that it is inconsistent for that should also include the premise which states that killing of innocent persons is always wrong. Moreover, it is inconsistent for the fact killing an innocent person is not always wrong just like in self-defense. However, the inconsistency does not stop there. It is for the reason that you can defend yourself to the point of killing an innocent person only if he will actually kill you, but not if he will only injure you.

These are just some of the inferences that we can see from the articles provided. Having read all the articles, the issue of abortion still remains to be a puzzle for me for the reason that neither side can really claim that the one their fighting for is the right one. For me, the issue of whether or not abortion should be permitted is a case-to-case basis. Moreover, in my opinion, the people who are concerned with the issue, mainly the pregnant woman, should have the right to decide for herself responsibly.

ISTURIS, R.D.S. 2005-53691
Philo 171 Jimenez 1st writing assignment abortion Question # 2


First words for this paper are: the arguments stated do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the writer.

In the first place, what makes abortion a moral issue? By definition, a moral issue arises when the choices that people make will affect the well- being of others by either increasing or decreasing it, causing either harm or benefit. So it is the premise that “others” well being will be affected that makes abortion a moral issue. As long as someone will be affected positively or negatively, it is a moral issue.

Pregnant women think of having an abortion for such reasons as, danger of the pregnancy to the mother (anyone with a zygote inside her body), unwanted pregnancy (e.g. Rape victims), simply not wanting a child, not wanting to undergo pregnancy/birthing process, lack of ability or resources to sufficiently care for child, etc. From the above reasons, a common factor is that someone’s (mostly the mother’s) well being will be affected, positively or negatively by the continuation of pregnancy. That settles it, abortion is amoral issue.

Moving on, another concept that people look at and say that abortion is a moral issue is the concept of “killing” the young. Are we really “killing” in abortion? Marquis defined “killing” as the “deprivation of a valuable future” that makes killing immoral or a moral issue at least. So it follows that if abortion turns out to be a “killing” then it is immoral, but if it turns out that nothing is killed during abortion then abortion is not immoral. Back to the question, are we really killing during abortion? Killing entails that for something to be killed, it should be alive. Alive in the biological sense entails the capability and/or exhibition of dividing cells. So we can consider stem cells as “alive”. Notice that “and/or” is used, meaning that “alive” entails one or both of the characteristics given. But this premise gives us the problem of scope. The scope of this premise is too big and vague. It will mean that when a stem cell scientist disposes (removing from favorable conditions) a Petri dish containing actively dividing stem cells (“alive”), then it can be said that the scientist “killed” the stem cells and has executed an immoral act.

Let us take a narrower point of view regarding “alive” since it is asked that we focus on the context of abortion. In the medical world, the obvious sign of death is when the heart stops beating. From this, it is the beating of the heart that separates life and death or alive and dead. So a beating heart is to being alive. Notice that “beating” and “being” is used. It denotes an ongoing phenomenon, the exhibition of a beating heart. We cannot ascribe a simple heartbeat to being alive. Take the case of a dying patient in an ICU, it heart stopped beating, the doctor was alerted, and performed CPR or used a reviving apparatus; the heart gave a faint beat, one beat and then no more. From the case we cannot say that the patient is alive just because it exhibited a heartbeat. The heartbeat must be continuous, ongoing.

So abortion is a moral issue because of its effect on someone, and it is the “killing” (deprivation of valuable future) that will make it immoral, and killing entails a beating heart, it follows that without a beating heart, abortion is moral or permissible at least.

We must first find out what abortion is. Quoting Webster (2003), abortion is the expulsion of a fetus prematurely, when non viable, and/or miscarriage produced artificially and/or the partial or complete arrest of development as of an embryo. The expulsion of an embryo or fetus. When fertilization starts up to two months (56 days), the resulting congealed mass in the woman’s womb is called an embryo. After which, it is then called a fetus. The heart starts to beat on the 24th day from the moment of fertilization. So aborting an embryo within the 23days from fertilization is not killing and therefore permissible, since the embryo’s heart has not yet started beating. And aborting a 24-day old embryo and fetus is immoral. That is settled.

Moving on, another salient concept from the articles is the concept of “person”. The authors’ arguments say that a person is one with “valuable future”. This premise asks the question, valuable to whom? There must be someone to value it or it is not valuable at all. If my future turns out to be that I become a computer whiz which turns out to be very valuable to the country’s military service but not valuable to me on my own standards since I don’t get to go out but stay indoors working on computers, will it be ok if I wished that my mother aborted me? If the military, me and my mother knew my future and could turn time back to when I was just a fetus and I so wantonly wished that I be aborted knowing of my future, and considering it invaluable according to my standards, will my wish be granted to me? Who is to define what valuable future is? Whose standard of valuing (the military service, my mother or mine) is to be considered? This is a rather tedious mental task and not everyone possesses Solomon like wisdom, so let us take what is currently being done on these situations. On normal circumstances and more often than not, it will be the military or the mother’s standards of valuing that is used since “me” is just a fetus connected by a cord to my mother and is not yet capable of making autonomous decision. This leads us to the issue of autonomy.

Generally, feminists uphold the pro choice movement. Feminism states that people, specifically women have a right to property one of which is the woman’s body. So does pregnant woman have a right to do anything to that thing in her womb connected by a cord to her including abortion? Is that thing in her womb a separate body from her, one to which she does not have any right? Or by virtue that it is inside her and connected to her, is it her’s and therefore she has a right to it? When does it become a separate body? We can see that it is the relation of the mother and that thing in her womb which is crucial in this issue. If that thing in her womb is a separate body then it is immoral for the mother and anyone else to abort it. But if that thing in her womb is part of her body therefore her’s to which she has a right then aborting it would be permissible. Again, whose point of view is to be used? What is to be considered a separate body, autonomous? If I have a lice clinging to a strand of my hair, is it immoral if I pinch it between my nails thereby killing it? A fetus is virtually like lice on the woman carrying it; it gets nourishment form the woman and is connected to the woman’s body. that thing inside the woman’s womb is actually autonomous in that nobody is telling it to grow, nobody can order it into following directions. A louse is ok to kill because it causes itching, discomfort and an eyesore, right? What if the pregnant woman thinks the same of that thing growing inside her womb? Is it ok to abort it just for that reason?

The articles say that it is when a threat to the mother’s well being is present that abortion may be permissible. What exactly can be considered a threat? When the mother’s life is at stake? Can gross disfigurement of the mother as a result of continuing the pregnancy be considered a threat; threat that her husband will look for another woman because she is no longer physically desirable? From my point of view, I chose to understand “threat” for use in the context of abortion as the situation when the mother’s life is at stake. The worst case scenario is used to ascribe what is “threat” to minimize the problem of vagueness and umbrella scope. Outside abortion this understanding can also be used. Take the case of a war stricken area. A family with a new born baby is hiding with war soldiers pursuing them and then the baby starts to cry uncontrollably posing the danger that the soldiers will hear the cries, find the family and kill all of them. Will it be permissible for the baby to be killed to save the lives of the other family members? it is evident that abortion or from the just stated case, the killing of the baby, can be permissible if the threat outweighs the gain to be gained by continuing the pregnancy.

No position is taken in this paper but personally I am pro choice; the issue in not on abortion itself but on who makes the decisions, what perspectives are used, who decides if the decision to abort rests on the parents of the fetus or the doctor. With so many perspectives in the world, the morality or morality, rather whether abortion is permissible or impermissible is really by case to case basis. Like the morality or immorality of female circumcision, what perspective is to be used, etic or emic? But let us not start on that.

Santiago, L.N.

There are five salient assumptions that will be identified in this paper. It will be followed by the inferences made by the authors of the essays and the analysis of whether these inferences are valid or justified.

On the assumption that a fetus does not constitute a person, whereby a “person” is defined as someone who has certain basic rights that must be honored and protected. According to Jane English, there is “no single criterion that can capture the concept of a person and no sharp line can be drawn”. A person has more than one facet, each as important as the other, wherein their sum total constitutes a typical person. To Jane English, these are the biological, psychological, social and rationality factors. There are, however, persons who may lack one or two of these, but this may not readily reduce them to nonpersons. It is simply that they lack what is typical of persons but still maintain the essence of being a person. In the same way, nonpersons having most of the characteristics typical of a person does not immediately equate it to a person (as it is stated by English, a robot). It is certainly true that no single criterion can encompass the concept of a person and since English laid down the typical features of a typical person, so it naturally follows that a person can differ from another person. By this, the concept of what makes someone a person varies in certain aspects. He/she may be lacking in some of the factors (e.g. mentally retarded, crippled, etc) that makes a typical person, but still possess the necessary characteristics that make him/her a person. It is reasonable to assert that a person is not only someone who possesses certain rights and that only those considered as persons should have or be given rights. In any way you look, a person is a complex being, an entity that possesses life and a potential to shape a personality, have feelings, problems, gain experiences and so on. He/she, being a member of the society, will gain rights—something which is also part and parcel of being a person. A person is not just someone who possesses certain rights. By saying that the rights given to them is what make a person is tantamount to saying that individuals who had not been given rights (during the African slavery) are or should be considered nonhumans, then the argument will lead to a deeper argument about racism. So it is insufficient to say that a person is one that has basic rights; thus, making it necessary to include other typical features of a person.

On the assumption that a fetus is a person, English infers that “abortion is justifiable as a means of self-defense”. If it threatens the mother’s life (health, future prospects, relationships, etc.) then it is reasonable to undertake abortion because it is only self-defense. Self-defense, in the context of abortion, is seen as a means of avoiding harm or death; thus, saving the mother’s life. The threat that the fetus may pose may come in different forms, as mentioned earlier, and may be serious enough to affect the mother’s well being, or worse, cause death. If it is reasonable to defend one’s country or loved ones, then it is also reasonable to defend oneself from inevitable danger. However, there are kinds of dangers that a loving mother would face or risk her life just to save her child from abortion. It may be justifiable, but then a mother’s love can transcend standards—i.e. sacrificing her life/future to save the child. Almost everyday, mothers and young women choose between keeping the baby or having an abortion for reasons that may involve preserving one’s status (from staying childless to avoid conflicts with work, family, etc to staying alive and healthy). For the mother to continue living her life, it is necessary and important for her to make her own choice—a choice that may (or may not) entail ending the life of the child to prevent him/her from thwarting the mother’s chances of having a future.

On the assumption that a fetus is a nonperson, English asserts that “abortion is justifiable in the early stages of pregnancy, and only seldom justifiable late in pregnancy”. Whether or not a fetus resembles an adult human being does not deny it as being human, neither is it justifiable to allow abortion in the early stages and only seldom allow it in the late stages only because of the characteristic resemblance. Be it in the first few weeks or in its ninth month, a fetus remains a fetus until it is born. There should be no necessary prejudice given if a fetus is at its early stage or not if it is to be aborted, unless it poses a threat to the mother. It is believable to say that we find compassion or liking towards those that look like us and indifference to people or animals (or nonhumans) dissimilar from us (mostly on the physical aspect). So it follows that if we are less or not attached to nonhumans that do not share with us “coherence of attitudes”, then it would be likely for us to treat them with less consideration. It is a form of injustice to justify abortion only in the early stages and only seldom the late stages of pregnancy on the basis of its physical features. Accepting this inference is parallel to the agreement to genocide.

On the assumption that it is wrong to kill us, and why is it wrong? Don Marquis asserts that, “loss of one’s life deprives one of all experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted one’s future”. Logically, if one is killed, he/she cannot pursue whatever potential plans or aspiration he/she might have. The would-have-been fruitful future would only remain a figment of a “dead fetus’ imagination”. Whatever potential value the child or fetus’ future might have would be taken from him, in other words, the “plan” to continue his existence will be aborted and so will his prospective gains or losses. Since the fetus is a human’s child, it is logical to assume that he/she is also a human. Therefore, it is wrong to deprive an individual of something that would contribute to his well-being and make him/her an asset to his/her society. By killing the child or fetus, we not only deny the child of a future but also the society of a prospective catalyst for change. A fetus is a human, in its early development. Therefore, it has every right to live a life full of experience and activities and see what the future holds for him/her. Also, a fetus possesses a natural property, a property endowed at the moment of fertilization—life. A fetus possesses life and thereby, owns it. But it is also something that can be stolen from him/her (and that can cause his/her death) at abortion. If the child is aborted, the person responsible for the act is guilty of larceny, treachery, and murder.

On the assumption that inflicting pain on me is wrong, Marquis infers “the wrongness of the wanton inflicting of pain on animals”. According to Marquis it is wrong to inflict pain simply because it causes suffering. More so is the wanton infliction of pain. Many debates have been waged on the right of a criminal with a death sentence to die painlessly. With the advent of lethal injection, the right to have a painless death prevailed. If a criminal, someone who has given so much suffering to other people deserves to die painlessly, then it makes it abominable to inflict pain on a fetus who did not choose to be a cause of her mother’s suffering. Apparently, abortion is not painless. Therefore, it is a wanton act of inflicting pain since it makes the fetus suffer so much than what its tiny body can handle. Whatever method of abortion is used, the child will experience the pain of the process. Until, eventually, life escapes his/her body.

Upon being asked to take a stand on the issue of abortion, one is facing a decision that would concern the concept of morality. Abortion being one of the fossilized areas for debate for the subject matter is also one that has yet to have been concluded. By concluded I mean that there has actually never been a dominant agreement on whether which side society will take.
Having read Jane English’s article which is entitled Abortion and the Concept of a Person, where she began with stating the arguments and of the two opposing sides – conservative and liberals – and later on also state the counter-arguments of both, has helped me understand deeper on why the talks on the particular issue seem to continue. As far as morality is concerned, the title itself has made mention of a main area for discussion and that is the concept of a person.
The article was successful in the sense that it was emotionally appealing but at the same time it is still based on facts. Because the discussion mainly revolves around whether or not a fetus is person, English greatly emphasized on the arguments and the examples cited were very sufficient. But I would not linger on her discussion of the examples.
What I find more interesting is the approach used. English’s approach gives the reader the idea of both sides and therefore equips one better on taking a stand. But the different stands shown were mainly descriptive so the decision-making still lies with the reader. On one part, quoting from her article where she said “..a fetus lies in the penumbra region where our concept of a person is not so simple. For this reason I think a conclusive answer to the question whether a fetus is a person is unattainable.” In these two sentences she has fully given the task of making a stand to the reader.
Given clearly demarcated choices between an anti, a pro, or a pro-choicer, I would have to go for pro-choice. In a post-modern society where one exists along with the so-called MTV culture, the choice on whether or not a person decides to have an abortion is something that society should not interfere with. My argument not being contained in such cases where it would put the mother’s life in danger or other personal issues, but rather it is based on a larger scale, on the scale of society. Let me cite an extreme then cite a normal case for this matter. For the part of the extreme, take for example a pregnant woman who is living in the level of subsistence. An anti-abortionist would claim that the right of the child to live should not be denied. However upon that child’s entry to the world, would the other human rights be satisfied? Or even would his or her basic needs be met? If not, then I believe that it is also immoral in the sense that it is also a violation of that child’s human rights. For the normal case let me take for example the case of a teen pregnancy. Cases like these are most likely unplanned or –if I may – unwanted. There is a great possibility that this child will grow up without a father or be irresponsibly raised. This again could result to the child’s, the mother, and to society’s detriment. We all say that the family is the basic unit of society, well then imagine a considerable part of the new population to be born under such circumstances then it would most likely have an evident unpleasant effect on the society as a whole. For both of my examples, I would just like to clarify that I am speaking of possibilities. There are no claims but mere suggestions. This would seem like contradicting myself, but in all truthfulness I believe that ideally there is no reason for abortion to continue to be practiced in the world. However, reality is different from our ideals. And this is why such debates continue to exist.
In conclusion, I believe that being pro-choice is what is most ethical, moral, and most importantly practical in the present times that we exist in.

The articles of Don Marquiz and Susan Sherwin entitled ‘Why Abortion Is Immoral’ and
‘Feminist Analyses of Women and Abortion’, respectively, have presented viable arguments concerning the issue of abortion. The two articles offered opposing views on the issue, in which, Don Marquiz examined the beliefs of a pro-choicer and an anti-abortionist, and Susan Sherwin on the other hand studied the reasoning of a feminist and a non-feminist. The careful analyses made by these writers have aided me personally, in clearing up my mind and arriving at my own stand on the topic of abortion. I agree with Don Marquiz’s argument that abortions, with few exceptions, are immoral and morally impermissible. A fetus has a moral status or moral standing just like an adult human being. Questions regarding the abstract concept of a fetus based on biological and psychological perspectives should not be the focus of the issue. These queries on the definition of human life, human being and other key concepts that cover the fetus as an entity were later found out to be irrelevant on the central issue. As an end result, a more complex problem arises with no clear solutions. Abortion causes death to the fetus. What primarily makes it wrong is the effect of killing on the victim itself, not on the murderer or on the victim’s friend and relative. The effect entails the greatest possible losses on the victim, such as the loss of his or her future. The value of a human’s future is given emphasis as the wrong-making feature of abortion. But not only humans have futures, some other species like nonhuman mammals can have futures too. And so, it can be asserted that it is also wrong to kill them. Active euthanasia is among the few exceptions in the claim that the loss of one’s future is the wrong-making feature of abortion. It is because the value of one’s future is greatly emphasized in this claim, as such, persons who are severely and incurably ill, who face a future of pain and despair, and who wish to die will not have suffered a loss if they are killed. Past experiences on one hand have no connection in the explanation of what makes killing wrong. One’s future can be valuable even if he or she does not value it, just like the example given, a young person attempts suicide but is rescued and goes on to momentous human achievements. Contraception is another exception to this claim in the sense that no human future is denied by using contraceptives because there is no actual combination to form a fetus at all.
Attention should not only be focused on the moral status of the fetus. Interests of the woman and those of the fetus should be identical. There should be no competition between the rights of women and those of the fetuses because they are both significant players on the issue. Women oppression is prevalent at present but this should not be the matter for abortion to be legalized or become morally permissible. Abortion is definitely not the solution for a woman’s personal difficulties or the solution for the nation’s problem on population. The state should direct its resources to support women who choose to continue their pregnancies rather than allocating funds to eliminate abortion in the country. In addition, governments should develop programs for pre and postnatal care and nutrition of pregnant women ensuring the health and well-being of more fetuses and, ultimately, of more infants.

The need to abort
Abortion is a serious moral issue. It must be really hard for a woman undergoing pregnancy and at the same time thinking of aborting what is inside her as an option.

There are some questions that I think has to be first dealt with before even answering the question of whether abortion is right or wrong.

First, in what kind or heterosexual relationships does abortion usually becomes a choice? Is it inside marriage or outside marriage?

I do believe that although we can never claim that all married couples do not think of abortion, premarital sex produced pregnancies that usually tends to resort to this moral issue.

Another question would be, "Why would a woman/girl would consider abortion?" Is it because the guy is shying away from responsibility? Or because her parents have plans for her and that continuing pregnancy to having a baby would ruin her future? Or does the girl sees it as a hindrance to her future or career or reputation? Or the society will ostracize her? Or she's going to die if she continue her pregnancy? Or she just simply don't want a baby? Or whatever.

Understand abortion
Whatever answer to that question, I could never fully understand the meaning of abortion for a woman who is undergoing such a dilemma.

I could never fully understand the meaning of having an organism inside me that has the possibility of becoming a human, fully dependent on me and my choice. I could never fully understand how it feels to be pregnant.

And that is exactly the reason why I think discussing abortion whether it is morally permissible or not is really tough.

A guy like me could only imagine, analyze and philosophize concepts and theories that would somehow seem to capture everything that is essential in understanding abortion, but truly could not capture everything - the meaning and feeling of abortion from a female and from the fetus.

My personal bias is that human reasoning is not enough to understand everything, human knowledge can explain how it is like to die as a fetus, but we can never fully grasp the whole meaning of dying or living on our own.

For me everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial. Therefore, for me abortion is permissible, but one should also be aware that it has its consequences whether be good or bad.

Abortion could pose many serious health problems for the woman, at the same time it also gives her many advantages depending on how she perceive her situation.

Assertions on abortion
According to Jane English, a philosophy teacher in University of North Carolina, in her paper entitled "Abortion and the Concept of a Person," conservatives gives the conclusion that abortion is wrong because it is murder. Jane English refutes this assertion by stating that not all killings of humans are murders. Killing, even of an innocent person, may be justified in the name of self defense.

On the other hand, liberals see that a woman can do whatever she please to do with the fetus for it is not yet a human until it leaves the womb after birth. However, Jane English refutes this idea by stating that you cannot do everything with your body if it is going to affect someone else and that if a fetus is not a person it doesn't mean you can do everything to it.

Jane English rebuttals are based on present legal trends. Her line of reasoning is inside the framework of an established laws regarding self defense and animal cruelty.

Although, Jane English asserts that there could be no single criterion that could capture the concept of a person and that she qualified her stand by setting a condition, that at somewhat early stages of development of the fetus where it does not yet resemble a human like baby, abortion is permissible and at the later stages of pregnancy, where the fetus is more like a human, it is not, unless outweighed by a serious circumstance like possible death of the mother if pregnancy is continued.

Don Marquis, a professor of philosophy in the University of Kansas, concludes in his paper entitled "Why is Abortion is Immoral?" that abortion is immoral with few exceptions, by arguing that fetuses have the same moral status and standing as other person have. His inference is based on the assumption that "whether or not abortion is morally permissible stands or falls on whether or not a fetus is the sort of being whose life it is seriously wrong to end," is correct.

Don Marquis said that normally, pro-choicer qualifies the fetus as non-human by viewing it as less of a human and more of an irrational, non-social beings. Anti abortionist on the other hand views a fetus like a baby, incorporating emotive descriptions of the fetus so as to arouse sympathy from the people.

Professor of philosophy, Sally Markowitz of Willamette Unversity in Salem, Oregon asserts in her paper "Feminism and Abortion" that abortion is permissible if women find themselves facing unwanted pregnancies in a society in which they would suffer discrimination and experience marked inequality.

Her assertion is based on the assumption that a fetus has a serious right to life and that women have less power in the society than men.

Validity

Jane English's conclusion seems to be sound and convincing for she have stated a condition that would justify abortion if it is done in the early period of the development stage and it is mostly not anymore justifiable if the fetus is on the later stage of pregnancy or when the fetus resembles more like a baby.

But we have to understand that pregnancy is one single season with different stages. She has to clearly define what she means about "early" stages and "later" stages of pregnancy. Because the "likeness" of the fetus in to a baby is highly relative.

This lacking doesn't necessarily mean her argument is invalid.

Don Marquis' argument on the other hand is valid in the sense that he was able to establish his argument by first proving that the fetus has its moral status like ordinary people. Therefore killing a fetus which intrinsically have a moral status is wrong just like when it is wrong when you decide to kill an adult person.

Sally Markowitz's argument is also valid. This means abortion is not justified if that pregnant woman is in a highly conducive environment and society for pregnancy without discrimination and intimidation from economic factors.

I focused on Jane English's "Abortion and the Concept of a Person". The article is divided into two majors points which is subdivided into severals assertion or assumptions and these two are 1. The concept of a person and 2. Justifying abortion using the concept that is presented. The author is able to used others views on the concept of a person and through it she is able to find answers that is strongly supported. And the burden of validating their assertion lies upon the coherence of her claims that are also well supported.
The first point of the paper is the controversial concept of person. Using different views from different people she is able to consolidate them into a powerful premise. As i analyze, John Noonan's work catch my attention. He argues that newborns (including fetuses) are not human since they need aid from other people to live. It is like suggesting that a person is someone who is capable of living on his/her own without any help and assistance from others. Although, he does not say, but I interpret it that way. I assume that he is taking here PRIMARILY to physical aid. For newborns are not YET capable of using their body in order to survive. Here, i think his claims are too broad disregarding other factors that would contradict it immediately. He should have elucidated further so that he could have supported the conclusion strongly. My counter questions would be: Do grown ups (capable of living on their own) live by themselves without even asking assistance from others? If ever they did ask, does it mean that they are non humans?
Moving on, in her discussion English presented at most 5 factors where in a human is qualified: namely, biological, psychological, rationality, social, and legal. However, she indicated that it does not necessary follows that when someone fails to qualify on these factors then he/she is non-human. Since what she had presented are only features. If this is the case, then no one has ever been qualified into to it. Another is, the premise presented, as well as assumptions, assertions and examples, does not support the conclusion. The premises are heavy, but the conclusion is light and unsupported. I suggest that in qualifying a fetus as a human there is a need to have one concept of a person wherein everybody can be qualify. Everybody here means those whose are not fetus and newborns since we are still validating it. In that case, a fetus or a new born would be qualify to be one. However, that suggestion is subjected to biases to give definition that is affected by their ideology which they advocate.
In the first place, a definition is highly affected by these factors. But there is a need to come up with a single definition, whether or not, it is subjected to biases. English presented both views of the opponents and proponents of abortion. But she failed to give a concrete conclusion as to a fetus is a human, that lead us into the next major points of justifying abortion by the concept of a human.
Justifying the act of abortion, is the next maj0r point of her article. She uses the work of Thomson which is "A Defense of Abortion". Thomson uses the model of self defense to conclude that abortion is permissible at some cases.
Thomson believed that abortion is justified when the life of the woman is at stake. And she is able to support it, through the self defense model. I quite agree if it is the choice of the woman to abort the fetus if it is inflicting her death. The role of the doctor is another thing. Since they specialized peculiar cases, then he/she can influence the decision of the woman regarding it. I think the presence and knowledge of the doctor would confirm the decision of the woman. However, regarding those pregnancies among teenagers, abortion is unjustified. In the first place, why in age in premarital sex. Not only the consequence of early pregnancies, but it is possible for you to be infected by sexually transmitted disease. Yes, there may be a consequence of how to face your community since you have your early motherhood. But it will not last long, eventually gossip would die down. It is better than being a murderer of an innocent. Yes, the shame would cause you harm, but like I have said it would not take long.
And all there is a chance that certain internal complication would occur because of abortion. The claim that abortion is permissible due to unfavorable circumstances is strongly supported.