Abortion Is a controversial epic that directly relates to determining the full moral standing of an embryo or fetus. We are unable to achieve a consensus on the moral standing of an embryo or fetus due to the lack of clear definitions of death (or life), the conflicts of determining fetus sentience and the different viewpoints of the moral standings for a pregnant woman. The lack of definite definition of death causes problems when determining the moral standing of an embryo or fetus. According to Vetch, there are three definitions of death: higher-brain, whole-brained, and somatic.
Each definition provides a different implication for the moral standing of fetus. The higher-brain death “implies that full moral standing accrues only when the requisite higher functions appear… [having] the capacity for mental function or consciousness” (38). This deflection suggests that a fetus would only have full moral standing at about twenty- four weeks of conception and not before that time. The whole-brained death definition suggests that full moral standing would be determined “when [the] capacity for neurological bodily integration or interaction with the environment develops” (38).
This Implies that a fetus would have full moral standing at about eight o twelve weeks of conception rather than at twenty-four weeks. Yet the somatic definition of death infers that full moral standing for fetus would occur even earlier than that. Although the whole-brain death definition would be the one that moderates the debate of abortion, these various definitions show how there is no agreement as to when exactly a fetus or embryo Is given full moral standing.
Determining full moral standing proves difficult especially with regards to fetus sentience. Sentience is defined as having awareness or fundamental consciousness; however, it Is interpreted in many ways. “Sentience ought to be understood as a way intent beings are aware of themselves (I. E. Conscious) and a way of belonging to the surrounding world” (Bogart 293). With that in mind, a fetus cannot be assumed to have sentience, for it is difficult to determine when a fetus is sentient. In L.
Wayne Summer’s A Third Way, Sumner defines sentience as follows: In the most primitive form It Is the ability to experience sensations pleasure and pain, and thus the ability to enjoy and suffer. It’s more developed forms Include wants, aims and desires (and thus the ability to be satisfied and frustrated); 1 OFF In relevance to the moral standing of fetus concerning sentience, fetus according to Summer’s definition of sentience) do not have the characteristics of sentience. However, many may argue that although fetus may not have sentience at a given point, the potential to be sentient is still present.
To assume that fetus potentially will have the capacity for consciousness and develop features of self- awareness is to imply that such fetus should then only be given full moral standing once the potential has been recognized. Nevertheless, the conflict of determining full moral standing cannot be resolved due to the inability of defining when a fetus has entice. In all the debate, the moral standing of a pregnant woman is neglected and sometimes ignored. On one hand, many take into consideration that abortion is wrong with the view that a fetus is alive and has a right to life.
This implies that “a woman’s obligation [is] to sustain the [fetus] life” (Kapok’s 87). In Kapok’s article, “Two Stalemates In The Philosophical Debate About Abortion And Why They Cannot Be Resolved Using Analogical Arguments”, he claims that a woman “voluntarily [engages] in an activity that [has] foreseeable consequence” (87) Kapok’s points out hat it is the woman’s responsibility to take care of the life of the fetus because it relies on her to survive. However, he neglects the women who did not voluntarily engage in the activity that had consequence. What about the women who were raped?
The public may sympathize with the raped woman and see that abortion would be solely the choice of that woman regardless of the life that may be inside her. However, others defend the fetus and its potential to have full moral standing and disregard the pregnant woman and her own moral standing. Kapok’s points out: The pro-life side puts forward the principle that killing humans is rang, while the pro-choice side enunciates the principle that autonomous choices ought to be respected. Since multiple conflicting principles apply, one must discuss limitations of principles, and their application to the case at hand.
In such a discussion, one needs to examine how the general principles apply to particular cases. The move to a case-based analysis is a necessary tool when there is disagreement at the general level of principles. (88) The conflicts between views of the fetus’ moral standing verses the pregnant woman’s moral standing causes abortion debates on whether it should be legal or not. These views waver depending on whether or not the moral standing of the fetus is favored or the moral standing of the pregnant woman is favored.
Moral standing concerning abortion is ultimately difficult to determine due to all the different views and opinions on when life or death occurs and the full moral standings of the fetus verses the pregnant woman. The controversy of moral standing for the fetus or embryo shows how ethics and medicine are two fields that do not have a common foundation of consensus for every possible medical situation. Unless there was one established accord to help define and decide when an embryo r fetus has moral standing for all situations, contradictions and conflict will continue one regarding abortion.
