The topic of abortion is one that has elicited mixed reactions and feelings in public debates, religious groups, and scholars among them philosophers for quite a long time. It is an issue that has also created a legal dilemma in many nations (Manninen, 2010). Pro-choice activists and anti-abortionists have time and again been at loggerheads with each side trying to justify its take on the topic. Most philosophers have shunned away from stating their take on the immoral or moral nature of abortion. Most philosophers associated with secular institutions of learning believe that the view that abortion is immoral is greatly influenced by irrational religious beliefs or irrational philosophical arguments (Marquis, 1989). This essay develops a general argument for the view that most deliberate abortions are immoral.
According to Marquis (1989), abortion is not just immoral but seriously immoral and wrong as it is the deliberate termination and killing of a being that has a right to life. It is the act of robbing off a future and life value from an innocent being. Most pro-life activists argue that life is present right from conception and that a fetus looks like a baby and possess a genetic code similar to any other human being. On the other hand, pro-choice argue that a fetus is not a social being or a being (Marquis, 1989). According to the philosopher, both parties believe that the truth behind their claims is obvious and sufficient to justify their stand. However, if any of these claims is true, it needs more than just the fetus characteristics basis and needs some ethical and moral attachment to it that provides obligation or lack of obligation to perform an abortion (Marquis, 1989). These two arguments need more filling to be termed as valid or adequate.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
According to Marquis (1989), the anti-abortionist will back up his claim on the moral basis that it is immoral to end human life more so the life of an innocent and defenseless baby. This position is right since it is in line with moral principles. The pro-choice will argue that being a person is what gives one worth and value and that it is only wrong to kill a person from the human community. This position is equally not obviously wrong (Marquis, 1989).
To try to get out of this standoff of these two views, I shall analyze the plausibility of each side's moral principle. According to Marquis (1989), the anti –abortionist principle of the evil and wrong nature of killing reaches a broad scope that even fetus falls under this category. The problem with this broad approach is that it carries too much in it and can be confusing in its claim when one thinks deeper about it. For instance, the claim that killing all forms of life is illegal leaves a lot in question when we think of life forms of harmful disease causing living human cells. Should they just be left to grow and cause more harm to the body simply because they are living forms in the human body? The pro-choicer on their part has narrowed down their principle on killing to eliminate the killing of a fetus from this scope (Marquis, 1989). This principle in nature does not accommodate much. This again places the two sides at loggerhead.
To narrow their scoop, and remove the ambiguity of their stand, the anti-abortionists ends up with, "it is wrong to kill human beings" thus eliminating the example mention above about living disease cells and other similar perspectives. However an argument still arises around this principle; yes the fetus is alive and possess human physical characteristics, but this does not make it necessarily a human being. According to Marquis (1989), the pro-choice too have ambiguity in their principle that only persons have a right to life considering the fact that the term person is often defined based on psychological characteristics.
According to Marquis (1989), it is hard to term correct any of the generalization and reasoning of the two sides. The moral principles that each side base their arguments on are generalizations and do not touch on the real essences of the matter. Both the pro-choice and anti-abortionist tend to suggest that the only condition to solving this controversy is a theoretic explanation of why killing abortion is wrong (Marquis, 1989). However, what is needed in this matter does not merely believe why abortion is wrong but understanding what makes abortion a serious immoral act. According to Marquis (1989), what makes killing wrong is the not the effect the action has on the murderer or on the victim but the fact that the loss of life is the biggest loss one can ever experience. Loss of life denies one all of the opportunities, experiences, and enjoyments that could have made up one's life. Therefore what makes killing wrong is the loss that the action inflicts on the victim (Marquis, 1989). This view is incompatible with the view that it is wrong to kill only biological human beings but is further be supported by the fact that killing other non-human mammals is equally seriously wrong (Marquis, 1989).
Just like adults, children and infants have a bright and valuable future and as such, deliberately denying this future to them is a seriously immoral and wrong act. Both pro-choice and anti-abortion theories cannot account why abortion is wrong. Cutting short the future of a person’s life is unethical. The future of an unborn child is similar to that of an adult human being. According to Marquis (1989) since the same reason that applies to why killing an adult or any human being after birth is wrong also applies to a fetus, abortion automatically becomes immoral and wrong.
The loss of a fetus killed is as big as the loss of an adult human being since this act denies both the fetus and the adult a future. Thus abortion is as wrong as murdering a standard adult is. Killing interferes with the fulfillment of a person's desires. When the life of an unborn child is deliberately terminated, the unborn child is deprived off a valuable future and prospects, directly wronging them. The same exceptions that apply to justification of taking an adult human life who has the ability to defend him/herself also applies to the exception situations under which abortion can be termed as moral (Manninen, 2010). For example, in already born beings, it is moral to take their life if there are going through experiences of physical pain and suffering whose hope of ending is dim and especially those surviving on life support.
According to Manninen (2010), this can be termed right since there is no much hope in the valuable future of this particular individual. This also applies to when an abortion can be termed as right. If the future of the child is likely to be one of pain and suffering due to serious deformities of the fetus, then choosing to save this life such a painful existence cannot be termed as immoral (Manninen, 2010). Also if the fetus puts the life of the mother in serious obvious danger, then an abortion can be conducted to save the life of the mother since in such cases even if harm does not occur to the parent, the fetus hardly survives. As such it is safer and logic to save the life that already exist and one is sure of than taking chances then later end up losing two lives (Manninen, 2010).
In conclusion, life and especially the existence of a future is a gift that no one ought to tamper with especially if there is no reason of doubt that the future will be fine that is not filled with any physical pain or liability. Abortion is strongly unacceptable and a serious moral wrong. A fetus possesses equal properties as an adult human being in terms of possessing a future (Marquis, 1989). As such killing, a fetus is as wrong as killing an adult is. Understanding why abortion is wrong is way more realistic than building theories around why abortion is wrong, theories such as the ones provided by pro-choice and anti-abortionists. This approach is based on the ethics of killing and avoids generalization on why it is okay or not okay to kill as the pro-choice and anti-abortion theories state.
References
Manninen, B. A. (2010). Rethinking Roe v. Wade: Defending the abortion right in the face of contemporary opposition. The American Journal of Bioethics , 10 (12), 33-46.
Marquis, D. (1989). Why abortion is immoral. The Journal of Philosophy , 86 (4), 183-202.
