A foetus is not a person . Discuss
Arguably, a foetus is a person. The Catholic church would argue that the foetus is a person from conception, for there is genetic material present at conception. Equally, someone who believes in the sanctity of life would potentially believe foetuses are people, for if all life is God given then even at this early stage God must have created life.
However, it is certain that a foetus is not a person. Even followers of the Bible will find it hard not to justify that something cannot be a person until is born. Genesis 2:7 said that man was created before he was given the breath of life. Until a baby can breathe outside of the womb it cannot be considered a human, even by followers of religion, surely. Peter Singer goes further to suggest that even babies up to the age of one month old are not people, for they have still not developed rational capacity, and to a certain extent he is right. Judith Jarvis Thompson listed the traits of personhood, including the ability to make rational decisions. It is certain that at birth babies do not have this ability, so perhaps cannot be considered to be people until a certain age of birth, however extreme this perspective may be.
It is almost undeniable that a foetus is not a person. Even religious followers would struggle to argue against this, and in addition babies display few traits of personhood, even up to birth. A sensible time to assume that a foetus becomes a person would be at birth, though even at this stage they may not display the traits of personhood, so by some would still not be considered people. A foetus is categorically not a person.
Explain how a belief in the Sanctity of Life may influence ethical approaches to abortion.
The sanctity of life theory is the idea that all humans are created in the image of God and because of this only God has the right to give or take life. An embryo, if considered a person, cannot be aborted if someone believes in the sanctity of life, for only God has the right to do this.
Natural Law uses the sanctity of life in its approach to abortion. Natural Law is a theory which uses the five absolute primary precepts to make moral decisions. One of these primary precepts, “preservation of innocent life”, leads to abortion being forbidden. Natural law observes the sanctity of life thesis, considering an embryo / foetus to be a person. However, although Natural law respects the sanctity of life, it is by no means a religious theory, for it is based on objective truth. Despite Natural Law forbidding abortion, there is a doctrine of double effect that can be implemented. If the mother’s life is threatened as a result of the pregnancy, for instance during an ectopic pregnancy, then the destruction of the fallopian tube would be acceptable. Here, the primary aim is not the terminate the pregnancy but to save the mother’s life. The secondary effect is that the embryo is destroyed. Here, abortion would be permissible even by Natural law followers, who believe in the sanctity of life.

The sanctity of life can be deconstructed into weak and strong theses. The strong sanctity of life, the pro-life argument, strongly asserts that God is the creator of life and creates us in his image. We are therefore different to animals. This brings up the idea that humans are different, or special. Humans, according to this theory, are created at conception, rather than at birth (or even after birth as Peter Singer believes) because of the special nature of humans, they cannot be destroyed, for instance in abortion, other than by God. The weak sanctity of life thesis, on the other hand, says that abortion can sometimes be justified. This viewpoint is typical of the Protestant church. Although they respect the sanctity of life, they feel it needs to be balanced against the command to “love thy neighbor”. Abortion remains, in all cases, evil, but can sometimes be the lesser of two evils. The Church of England supports experimentation on embryos during the first 14 days, which could lead to very important medical advances that affect the lives of millions. Equally, they would support abortion for extreme cases, for instance if the mother has become pregnant as a result of rape and would not be able to psychologically go through with the pregnancy.
Kant’s ethical theory has no serious weaknesses. Discuss.

It could be argued that Kant’s ethical theory does indeed have no serious weaknesses. Kantian ethics treats all people as autonomous beings, which means they are not constrained to the rules of society or to the rules of a “God”. Kant’s theory also means that people are not treated as a means to an end, only ever as an end in themselves. For instance, this would mean that children are not exploited in sweatshops, being paid 10p per hour, to make t-shirts whilst Primark sell the t-shirt for £3. The child would not be treated as a “means”. One of the major strengths of Kant is that everyone is the same. There is no differentiation between people no matter what their class, colour, background etc.
However, there certainly are weaknesses to Kant’s ethical theory. Although people are autonomous beings, being able to make their own decisions, perhaps they should have to conform to some things that society demands. Equally, Kant would argue that it is always wrong to lie for the action is not universalisable. However, if someone arrives at your home threatening to kill everyone in your home if you don’t lie to tell him that there’s nobody at home, then your family would die. Surely in some circumstances it is right to break the rules and lie, even if lying is not universalisable.
Certainly Kant’s theory has some serious weaknesses that should be taken into account. Even if Kant treats everyone as autonomous and creates a better society where we are “happy” for fulfilling our “duty”, this does not mean that fulfilling ever rule is the best thing to do. Sometimes it is right to break the rules, which Kant does not take account of. Kantian ethics does have serious weaknesses.