liamharvey's blog

Summary of Persson and Savulescu: “Moral Transhumanism

In this article, Persson and Savulescu discuss moral transhumanism by evaluating what is means to be part of the human species, the human moral psych, and societies moral shortcomings, all in an effort to show the importance of enhancing humans’ moral ability.

1.      The Superficiality of Species Membership

Persson and Savulescu begin their argument by highlighting that the way we view species membership is full of paradoxes and counterintuitive ideas.

-        They begin by explaining that humans as a whole view our membership of the Homo sapiens species to give us some sort of especially high moral status. The authors argue that this ideology thus makes the claim that species membership is an essential property of an organism that determines its nature.

My own view on the morality in abortion lies somewhere between that of Marquis and Thomson’s views. Marquis represents and anti-abortionist view with a highlight on his future-like-ours theory. Thomson demonstrates the pro-choice view with several different examples to explain her thinking. I do not agree with Warrens view on personhood or on why abortion is morally permissible, and infanticide is not. Warren’s focus is on other people’s desires purely and does not even consider the fetus. To me, it is important to consider the fetus’s future when considering abortion, which Marquis does not do.

Marquis argues that abortion is morally wrong because it deprives a fetus of the experiences, activities, and enjoyments that an adult may experience (Marquis 189). I agree with this view that a fetus represents all the possibilities and promise of human life. Gianna Jensen is a perfect example of the possibilities that can come from human life. Jensen faced immense setbacks, even so she has lived a fulfilling life. Jensen has lived a life of happiness and of great cause. She is known worldwide for her fight against abortion. To have an abortion deprives the world of a life that could have infinite possibilities. I do not find the discussion of when or whether a fetus is a person to be pressing because regardless, if uninterrupted, that fetus could become a person who lives a happy and great life.

Clearly Jensen’s remarkable story of facing the odds stacked against her due to a failed abortion are a massive inspiration to the pro-life movement. Her monumental life is a perfect example of the lives that anti-abortionist’s aim to protect. Jensen is a perfect example of Marquis’ “future-like-ours” theory, which is Marquis’ central argument against abortion. Marquis argues “The loss of one’s life deprives one of all the experiences, activities, projects and enjoyments that otherwise would have constituted one’s future” (Marquis 189). Jensen shows this clearly, as a survivor of abortion, all the things she has done with the life she has been given were attempted to be stopped with an abortion. Even with the abortion providing massive setbacks in Jensen’s life, she has still lived a life of happiness, meaning and international recognition.

Not surprisingly, Jensen’s story quickly started to spread, not only through the United States, but in Italy and across the world. Jensen began speaking to others about her story and became a figure in the anti-abortion movement. She met with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and U.S. President George Bush. Bush signed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which protects those infants born during failed abortions, like Jensen. A movie was even made loosely based on Jensen’s story by the name of “October Baby” and Jensen’s singing was featured in the movie with the song “Ocean Floor” (giannajensen.com).

Gianna Jensen is a young woman who has gained attention around the world for her inspiring story of living life as an abortion survivor. Jensen was born two months premature after her failed abortion; weight only 2.5lbs. She spent the first few months of her life in the hospital and then entered the foster system. The failed abortion resulted in Jensen being diagnosed with cerebral palsy and doctors who cared for her said she would never be able to even lift her head. Jensen refused this prognosis and by three years old was able to walk. As an adult she defied the odds further by running marathons.

Regarding abortion, however, Warren argues that the above cases do not apply to fetuses, even if there are many who view fetuses as valuable. Warren argues that so long that the fetus remains unborn, its survival is dependent on the mother, and thus infringes on her rights to freedom, happiness, and self-determination. Warren argues that a woman’s rights override those of who would like to see the infant preserved. She compares this situation to that of a man defending himself against a wild animal; he has the right to kill it in defense, even if there are those that wish for to see the animal live. Warren continues by stating that when the fetus is born, its preservation no longer violates any of its mother’s rights even if she wants to destroy it, because she is free to put it up for adoption. As such, the moment of birth marks the end of the mother’s right to decide its fate (Warren, 2).

However, despite considering infanticide to not be murder, Warren offers two reasons to explain why infanticide is not permissible in our society. First, Warren argues that just because parents do not want a newborn and would not suffer any loss if the newborn was the be killed, it is not right because there are others who would wish to adopt it. By killing the newborn, Warren argues, the potential adopters of the child are being deprived of their experience with the child and thus the act is wrong. Secondly, Warren argues that most people value infants and that they would work to preserve these children. Even if there is no one to adopt the child, the average person would be willing to pay taxes to support orphanages for the infants, rather than allow them to be killed. Warren continues by stating that if there are people who want these infants to be preserved and are willing and able to care for the infant, then it is wrong to kill them (Warren, 1).

M.A. Warren discusses in “Postscript on Infanticide” her view on infanticide in response to criticism received from her paper “On the moral and legal status of abortion”. Critics argue that through Warrens view that a newborn is not significantly more person-like than an advanced fetus, and that because she believes abortion of an advanced fetus to be permissible, that her argument thus argues for infanticide to be permissible. Warren argues that only people have a full-fledged right to life, and that only people can be murdered. Furthermore, Warren argues that a newborn does not meet the criteria to be considered a person, and thus killing them should not be considered murder.

Abortion has been a fiercely debated topic in politics, religion, and ethics across the world for as long as medicine has been able to provide the operation. Writers like M.A. Warren and Judith Thomson have written to express their views on why abortion is moral, while writers like Don Marquis and abortion survivor Gianna Jensen argue morally impermissible. I believe that the answer is not as easy as wrong or right and that the issue must be looked at from more than one perspective.

M.A. Warren discusses in “Postscript on Infanticide” her view on infanticide in response to criticism received from her paper “On the moral and legal status of abortion”. Critics argue that through Warrens view that a newborn is not significantly more person-like than an advanced fetus, and that because she believes abortion of an advanced fetus to be permissible, that her argument thus argues for infanticide to be permissible. Warren argues that only people have a full-fledged right to life, and that only people can be murdered. Furthermore, Warren argues that a newborn does not meet the criteria to be considered a person, and thus killing them should not be considered murder.

Still, the case in question presents a difficult ethical question as the patient is unconscious and his state is quickly deteriorating. With no identification, no legal papers confirming his end of life wishes, and no family to contact, this makes for the perfect storm in patient autonomy ethics. What if doctors were to honor his wishes based off a tattoo, only to find out those were not his true wishes. It is important to note that the patient was found just outside the hospital. But if the doctors do resuscitate the patient and it is against his wishes, are they breaking an ethical (and possibly legal) code?