Taking Sides by Gregory E. Kaebnick

        One of the biggest debates politically, medically, and ethically facing our society today is abortion. In Taking Sides by Gregory E. Kaebnick, philosopher Alexander R Pruss claiming “if I was a fetus, it would have been wrong to kill that fetus “. I will defend Pruss argument against the objection of Mary Ann Warren who defends “a cognitive criterion of personhood”.

        Alexander R. Pruss claiming in his argument, killing him as a fetus would have same consequences as killing him now. It deprive him of past, present, and bright future of who he is today. It would be inhumane to kill him now or before as a fetus, simply because him and the fetus are the same formation. It would take away his 29 productive years, all his personhood (kaebnick, 73). Therefore, killing him as fetus would have had posed a greater injustice than killing him as the person he is today. Seeing that the fetus has greater potential to become someone or something that adds a purpose to society (Kaebnick, 74).

        In objection to Alexander R. Pruss and Alexander’s statement about abortion, Mary Ann Warren defends “a cognitive criterion of personhood” (pence, 92). She sees a fetus does not meet this criteria. Warren’s claims, a person should have the ability to think and reason, to be cognitive. She further explains the thing that separates a person from an animal is certain capacities, such as self-awareness, use of language, and consciousness. Therefore, a person that lose or lack these capacities, shouldn’t be treated as a person and cannot be a person, and for, that person do not deserve special protection (pence, 92).  

        In respond to the objection, her argument is valid but unsound. The fetus meet the cognitive criterion, simply because the fetus is a potential human being. According to popular belief, a fetus has a right to live. A fetus is entitled to protection from society and the government. A great example of this is The Federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which protects unborn children from assault and murder. The act also state that an unborn child is a “member of the species homo-sapiens”, so a fetus should not be aborted. Furthermore, I don’t think that anyone has the right to deprive anyone from a life. Unborn fetus has the possibility to have a long future ahead of him/her. I don’t think that any woman has a right to abort her baby. For one, humans didn’t choose to come into this life in the first place. Humans did not create themselves. Therefore, I don’t believe that they have a right to end a fetus's life. A mother who wants to get rid of her baby under any circumstances, has forgotten that she was once a fetus. This is what Alexander R. Pruss emphasizes in his claim abortion, "I Was Once a Fetus: That Is Why Abortion Is Wrong” (kaebnick, 69).