The subject of abortion has elicited divergent views among philosophers as to the validity of having an abortion. Abortion is seen as a matter of philosophical beliefs as several arguments, and counter arguments have been brought forth to support and condemn abortion. Religion partakes to the issue through rational thinking while philosophy arguments are based on the support of the philosophical thinkers through theories. Moral tolerability of taking a fetus’ life is the fundamental standpoint through which arguments and counter arguments revolve. In my opinion, abortion is tantamount to murder, and I am of the firm belief that abortion is morally unacceptable and should be abhorred at all means. However the moral permissibility of abortion is dependent on the prevailing conditions, i.e. threat of bodily harm to the mother, rape cases and abortions before implantations. The aim of the paper is to support against abortion and dispel any arguments brought forth for abortion.
Abortion is the illegal taking away of life. Life begins at conception as the fetus starts to form, thus, the fetus can be considered as an individual at the early stages of his life. I find it morally acceptable that a fetus should be afforded the right to life in similar fashion as to an adult. Logic dictates that if life begins at conception, then a fetus has right to live therefore inflicting death on a fetus is taking away life. Pro-choicers for abortion embrace the notion that it is wrong to kill only persons (Marquis P.185). However, this idea is vague and limited to its premise as the word person has been obliterated in meaning not to consider fetuses though logically a fetus’ is a person yet to be fully formed but is in a growth process that will bring him/her into being. Moral principles of life indicate that the pro-choice argument is wrong as the biological facts show the inception of life is after conception. Psychologist Feinberg argues that for a psychological being there are duties and obligations, commonly termed as personhood, to be fulfilled thus the unborn have no obligation, therefore, no rationality (Marquis p. 187). Nevertheless ‘unconsciousness’ as is the case of a fetus is still a moral person without psychological traits but with rights.
A subsequent premise against abortion is the question of the morality and righteousness of killing an adult. In support of the immorality of killing someone has been brutalization and the suffering felt by our loved ones. A fundamental principle reason for the sin of murder is the loss occasioned by the victim. Life ceases to exist upon death, and this is the most basic of rights that denies one of the future promises that they would have achieved i.e. experiences and enjoyments of life (Marquis P.189). The deprivation of what one would experience in the future and any gains made is a heinous crime that should not go unchecked. The killing of fetuses denies a valuable future to the fetus’ who could have achieved endless possibilities thus immoral. On application of logic, killing denies one of the future gains, abortion is killing of a fetus thus denial of their future through abortion.
Rebuttals have been made to counter the argument towards a better future on the killing of unborn children on the basis of a guaranteed future especially if the family or mother is experiencing financial difficulties. Nevertheless, it is entirely unwarranted to merit the fate of the unborn on current economic hardships. Instances of children born to unstable families succeeding in life are prevalent in society, thus the argument on the bleak prospects holds no basis for an abortion.
Abortion inflicts pain on the unborn child and mother. Pain and suffering are a misfortune (Marquis P.193). The infliction of suffering is wrong, a major premise for the refinement from abortion. Actions that constitute pain are detrimental and unfair to a person. Categorically, this should apply to all persons irrespective of the birth status. It is, therefore, immoral to subject unborn children to such suffering as it beats logic, since all individuals strive for a life without suffering. Killing and suffering are misfortunes that are inhuman, especially for the unborn. A valuable future is not dependent on the prospects of a person, but rather on the intellectual thought that the possibility of having a future is already denied. Life is valuable as everyone strives to preserve life in a process commonly referred to as the ‘desire account’ (Marquis P.195) though the same is not applied when abortion issues arise as little or no care is provided. Strong basic desires are ingrained in a person as we strive to fulfill the right to continue to live. The desire to live is against the premise of killing. It is, therefore, wanton ignorance to assume that the fetus does not possess the desire to live. Such assumptions are against the idea of the condition to desire life through the justification of killing (Marquis 195).
Arguments for killing are attributed to the facts on the discontinuation account of one's projects, activities and work justifying such a premise on the fact that fetuses have no experiences, activities, and projects to be continued or discontinued (Marquis p. 196). The basis of this argument is faulty as true as it is, a fetus may not have all the prerequisite activities or projects but as such this does not warrant its death. Similarly, an unconscious person in his/her state of mind should not be killed on the account of discontinuation. Right to life supersedes the rational thinking behind the idea of discontinuing.
Philosopher Tooley’s provides an argument for abortion as he claims that the right to life is limited to an entity's capacity to the need for its existence (Marquis p. 198). Tooley’s philosophy has based the right to live for a fetus on the ability to desire the continuation of life. The argument behind Tooley’s school of thought is not permissible to the right to preserve life as it is centered on the capacity to show desire. The apprehension of a fetus towards the desire to life is not possible, though this does not deny it, the principal right to live. Life is the foundation, and its desire stems from possessing life itself, thus the belief that one can be denied this right is wrong as desire is based on one's perception of life a benefit yet to be afforded to an unborn child.
Other arguments brought forth for abortion are based on philosophical thought include the idea ‘that an embryo cannot be a victim and, therefore, cannot be wronged’ (Marquis P. 199). The principle of this rationale is that the fetus lacks sensory awareness and thus killing, does not utterly affect the embryo as it requires consciousness. Philosopher Paul Bassen, who comes up with the theory, is confident in his assertion that a fetus only exists as a consequence of metabolism thus no basis for victimizability (Marquis p. 200). However to support such a theory would be to disregard the basis that an embryo lacks a future and no rights. Victimizability on grounds of a lack of mentation infringes on the rights of the fetus as a person. Bassen bases his argument on the premise of a lack of empathy, which is required for victimization. However, this case is subject to discrepancies. As much as an embryo may lack empathy at the time of death that does not translate to a continued lack of empathy for the foreseeable future. Logic commands that an embryo is temporarily unconscious, but understanding is required to subvert victimization. Therefore, an embryo upon ‘consciousness’s’ should not be subjected to victimization during the temporary state.
The arguments brought forward for abortion include that abortions are natural through miscarriages thus no huge furore should be expected when abortions are undertaken. However, this is entirely untrue as natural miscarriages are unplanned for unlike abortions which are individual decisions. Abortion denies the child life and it is the duty of humanity to defend life at all costs, coupled with the perils of psychological trauma and bodily harm that can be as a result of the abortion process. As aforementioned by the reasons to avoid an abortion above, it is immoral to take life as life begins at conception and should be preserved, in my opinion, abortion is equivalent to murder and should cease.
References.
Marquis, Don. "Why abortion is immoral." The Journal of Philosophy 86.4 (1989): 183-202.
