Abortion

There are two principles provided by Devine, including species and potentiality principles. The first principle claims that an infant is a member of human society. Another principle suggests that an infant has a potential to think, love, and perform, because he is an individual as long as he learns the principles of social human roles. Both principles reject the notion that it is appropriate and fair to make abortions. These are two judgments, which make it immoral to justify abortion on the grounds of the fact that abortions should not take place within a highly developed society.

Fill in the easy online form to place your order

Use one of many payment options to pay for oder

Log in to see the order progress

Contact your writer to discuss the paper's details

Receive your paper well before the deadline

The author claims that these principles should circulate in the aspects against abortions. Moreover, the author asserts that a fetus is already a person as long as it has potential to conduct further developments in the social segment. I support both principles and believe that abortions should not become a socially acceptable phenomenon. Individuals have no right to decide whether to give or take away life from a fetus. It is possible to claim that a fetus has an absolute right to grow and develop as a personality. As long as there are many ideas that only a personality can have a soul, a fetus can be considered as a personality with a potential to integrate into the surrounding world (Norris, Besset, Steinberg, Kavanaugh, De Zordo & Becker, 2011). The lack of experience in building relations and meeting social norms does not mean that a fetus is not a personality. It is at the stage of a developing individual with its peculiarities regarding social integration.

Mary Anne Warren is an example used by the author to reflect the diversity of doubts circling around the notion of abortions. Warren claims that it is impossible to call human life a personality at the early stages of human development. She does not qualify a human life as having a soul with regards to several reasons. First, she believes that a human life obtains a soul when it has a conscious mind and can feel pain - both physical and psychological. The second matter is that it is possible to call human life a personality with a soul as long as an individual can reason his actions. Reasoning is a significant element in the process of thinking for a human organism, which should penetrate human activity in order to justify the presence of a soul. Thirdly, another point is that an individual should have a self-motivated activity in order to prove that there is a soul inside of the organism. The next element supports the idea that only an individual with an ability to communicate can have a soul. Interaction with other human beings is an element, which can have a significant influence on the development of relations and opinions. This is the point supported by Warren and reflected by Wilkes, who doubt the presence of a soul in human organism at the early stages of its development. Finally, the author’s example includes doubts in the aspect of the self-concept and self-consciousness. The abovementioned points formulate Warren’s idea of a soul in fetus. It is a transition to the conclusion of the author that a fetus does not have a soul as long as it lacks characteristics of a personality. At this point, the author claims that abortions are acceptable. In my own point of view, abortions are not acceptable in the religious aspect. Regardless of the religion, it is possible to claim that God created all human beings. It is not fair for the person to decide whether to take the life away. I believe that the soul exists from the first seconds of human life. The soul obtains the form of human body. It is not a human body, which obtains the soul. Human body is only a shape of a soul, which has purposes that need to be accomplished as soon as an organism dies at an old age (Rini, 2013).

Warren rejects the idea that a fetus can be a personality. She believes that a human being can have a soul as long as it interacts with other individuals and plays its particular role in the social setting. In addition, Warren believes that it is impossible to consider a fetus a personality as long as it does not have a conscious mind. She means that there is no responsibility in the aspect of human development at the stage of fetus. These are the main aspects, which lead to her rejection of the principle that penetrates many religious standards. Warren rejects the notion that it is unacceptable to kill an innocent human being. Fetus, in fact, is an innocent human being. Warren rejects the idea in this aspect by proving that “fallacy of ambiguity” takes place, which supports the point that an innocent human being cannot count as a personality as long as it has no grounds of moral development. She claims that it cannot apply to a fetus as long as it does not have any idea of such processes as building relations and social interactions. Warren bases the difference on the grounds of the fact that an individual obtains a soul and becomes a personality in the process of living in the world. She supports abortions since she does not consider a fetus as a personality. Warren does not put fetus equal with individuals and believes that it is a biological aspect, which helps to decide whether to do an abortion or not. The author provides this example aimed to determine whether it is a biological, moral, religious, or chemical notion of soul existence.

The reason reflected by Paul Wilkes in his work rejects the concept provided by modern embryology regarding a human soul in a human body. According to him, the conceptions happens in two or three days. Fertilization is a process, which requires at least 24 hours to occur and have an influence on the development of a new organism. Twins, as an example provided by Wilkes, develop during 14 days. The author focuses on the idea that it is hard to determine if there is a soul in a human organism. In the process of criticizing the author’s idea by crossing the segment of embryology, it is possible to claim that the author does not use any evidence to support his point of view. For example, the author does not demonstrate the subdivision problem. He does not explain whether twins receive different souls. Concerning twins, the author also does not discuss the point whether the soul splits in the fertilized egg. In addition, the author does not reflect this idea as a reason explaining the process, which leads to the split inside of the fertilized egg. However, it is possible to claim that in case the author’s idea is true, it has nothing to do with the concepts dictated by the Catholic Church. In fact, the lack of justification does not provide enough support of the point of view that there is no soul on the early stages of development, and abortions are acceptable. Cognitive science, in its turn, claims that a soul takes place as soon as the mind becomes conscious. It is the point, which could penetrate the author’s evaluation of the problem.