People hold different views on matters of contraception in relation to abortion and Marquis is no different. According to him, abortion is immoral since it deprives the fetus the benefits it ought to enjoy in the future as well as the art of appreciating its current position as a fetus. He excludes the abortions done with regards to special cases such as prior to implantation, if the life of the mother is threatened by the fetus and in cases of rape. He, however, does not view the use of contraception in relation to abortion as morally wrong even though contraception hinders actualization of a fetus into a probable human being in the future (Young 1979).
Basing on Marquis Essay, contraception would have been immoral if there was an actual fetus that was being prevented to access its importance in the future but in this case there is none. He also claims that during contraception, there are uncountable sperms available with an already released ovum hence hundreds of millions of sperm are bound to combine with the ovum to form a fetus. But no actual combination takes place hence not yielding a fetus that can be harmed hence no recognizable subject of loss that would make using contraception immoral.
Peter Singer, philosopher has arguments for claiming that animals should have rights. These include; basic principle of equality where he argues that non-human species should be granted equality as the humans would have extended it to members of their own species. Extending this principle from one species to the other does not mean treating the species in exactly the same or giving them the same rights as you. It should entail equality of consideration of interests that lays a foundation not only for humans. This means that our care and protection towards species should not be limited to their physical appearance or abilities (Warren 2000).
He further condemns speciesism using the level of intelligence among humans and how it can harm animals. In principle of equal consideration of interests a comparison is made between enjoyment and torture and its relation to animals. Suffering cannot be morally justified due to failure to consider suffering. Difficulties may arise due to humans being different from animals. They may include mental capacities. Using animals as food is to be questioned in cases of luxury other than necessity. Animals should not be forcefully used during experimentation as it is harmful to them (Steinbock 247-56, Harrison 1991).
Thomson’s response to the argument is compared to the lad taking chocolates and you drifting away from the violinist. It is immoral since the woman partially has a role that she played in calling the fetus into existence. She considers killing a fetus to save the mother’s life new since the fetus relies on the mother’s body for its survival hence granting it the right to use her body which cannot be given by another person if the pregnancy was voluntary. Unborn persons resulting from rape should be aborted since they have not been denied access to anything and they have no right over the mother’s body (Young 1979).
In conclusion, abortion is immoral but in special cases it should not be considered immoral. To prevent rising cases of abortion women should be educated on alternative methods of preventing unwanted pregnancy. Every individual has a duty of being a moral agent through discouraging abortion and promoting animal rights as measures of attaining a just society.
References
Harrison, Peter. “Do Animals Feel Pain?” Philosophy. 1991; 66, 25-40.
Steinbock, Bonnie. “Speciesism and the Idea of Equality.” Philosophy. 1978. 53.
Young, Robert. “What is wrong with Killing People?” Philosophy. 1979. LIV. 210.
Warren, Mary, Anne. Moral Status: Obligation to Persons and Other Living Things. London. Oxford University Press. 2000. Print.
