The Morality of Abortion

Abortion is a morally controversial issue that raises many questions about the value of life. According to Philosopher Donald Marquis, killing an adult is morally wrong. He then brings this to the question, that why then would killing a fetus be right, yet it deprives them of all their lives enjoyment and experiences as it would killing an adult (Velasquez, 554). In his argument, he comes up with two concepts. In the first idea, fetuses cannot value their lives which bring him to the conclusion that the fetuses lives are not theirs to value. Donald Marquis believes that the lives of the fetuses should not be taken for granted just because they do not know the values of their lives at that time. Donald Marquis also believes that a fetus cannot value its life unless it expresses the interest towards its life, and it cannot possibly show this interest in its unborn state. Upon its birth and upbringing, if it feels the need to end its life, then the value of that person’s life (the fetus) will be its own. Valesquez in his book Philosophy: A Text with Readings, notes Marquis emphasizes the importance of preserving each fetuses’ life as one would protect the lives of adults (Velasquez, 554). Marquis believes that these two concepts both have a similar mistake and that just because a fetus does not value its life before birth, it does not mean that it necessarily does not want it.
His concept is however opposed to the idea of using contraceptives. Marquis argues that pregnancy, which has been prevented by the use of contraceptives, is different from a pregnancy terminated through abortion (Marquis, 184).

A pregnancy prevented through the use of contraceptives, would, in this case, mean that the egg which later on becomes the fetus did not have a chance to get implanted in the womb, making the use of contraceptives different from pregnancy termination. The concept of a valuable future brings Marquis to the conclusion that abortion is wrong. This is because it deprives one of the ability to make their decision on whether or not they want to live and that as one would view killing an adult as being wrong, similarly termination of a pregnancy equates to the destruction of someone’s life (Marquis, 201).
Question 5
Abortion refers to the deliberate expulsion of a fetus from the womb of female at her request hence resulting in the death of the said fetus (Murray, n.p). Marquis account of the wrongness of abortion allows for termination of pregnancy in exceptional circumstances such as pregnancy resulting from rape. Another situation that can be justifies abortion, is when the health of the mother is at risk. As such an abortion can be permitted when the fetus is not well formed. In most cases in the world today, the spouse of the wife is questioned on which step he would prefer taken by the doctors, be it is saving the woman or the child. Marquis believed that it was wrong to terminate the lives of those who were terminally ill such as cancer patients and near-death patients (Marquis, 183-202). His exception for rape cases is justifiable because of the intercourse, in this case, was not conceptual and should be terminated. Mark Brown in his analysis of Marquis essay noted that in Marquis opinion killing a fetus would only be right if it were done for the same reason that one would kill an adult (Brown, 103-107). Marquis concluded that every fetus deserved to have a Future Like Ours (FLO) and should not be deprived of this.
Question 6
Bonnie Steinbock, a philosopher, in her essay, “The Question of Abortion: Morally Acceptable” argues that abortions are acceptable morally. She bases this on her opinion that fetuses are not yet fully formed and thus calls them Pre-human. According to Bonnie, fetuses are not sentient, and thus they lack interest in like and their opinions or moral status. She also feels that Marquis, who argues that depriving a fetus of the chance to live is immoral, is wrong because fetuses only have the potential to become something but are nothing until they are born. According to Steinbock, a being has moral status when it can account for its moral rights and whether it must be considered in societal and ethical obligations (Steinbock, 27).
According to Steinbock, most abortions are not seriously wrong, especially when conducted in the first few weeks of pregnancy. According to morality, the difference between conscious and non-conscious beings is that conscious beings have an interest in themselves and their welfare while non-conscious beings are only interested in not feeling pain. A sentient being can feel pain as it only has one interest, which is the desire not to feel pain. Thus, invoking pain at a sentient being could be termed as immoral. Steinbock’s argument starts with the idea that abortion is not the wrong because of the moral status of the fetus. She believed that the fetus is not morally equal to a newborn as a fetus did not have the ability to feel pain or emotions or be able to think (Steinbock, 27).
Steinbock uses a moral theory she refers to as the “Interest view” which states that to be morally relevant an individual must have interests which a fetus does not have. She contends that interests are important as they focus on what an individual considers necessary before considering the needs of other people. Biological sciences prove that fetuses cannot have sentience as it begins around the mid-third semester (Steinbock 28). This viewpoint justifies Steinbock’s reasoning that abortion in the early weeks of pregnancy is not morally wrong. Although it might be a mistake to destroy a fetus, Steinbock saw it as morally wrong to bring an unwanted child into the world as it would be unfair to the child (May, n.p).
Question 8
Peter Singer in 1972 presented his work on Famine, Affluence, and Morality. He’s main work involved doing more for the developing countries especially in the developed countries. He argued that the suffering brought about by the lack of food and healthcare services was bad and that if it could be prevented without sacrificing something else then, it would be a good course. He believed that poverty could be alleviated and that it was possible by contributing towards its eradication. He thought that his argument led to the conclusion that the developed countries should continuously give to the poor that is, the developing countries (Singer 229-231).
Singer provided an example of someone walking to work who sees a drowning child struggling in a pond of water. The person is capable of saving the child from the pond, but fears damaging their new leather shoes. He concluded that most people would choose to keep the child from the pond, with the minor inconvenience of getting their shoes wet (Unger, 9). From this example Singer explained that stopping poverty was simple and could be done at a little coast just like in the case of saving the child’s life should we choose to (Singer, n.p).
Singer also considered that most people would only help others if it meant that they would benefit and that if people could just focus on giving the extremely long tail of poverty could be reduced. Singer used the example of the child to show that world hunger and poverty could be solved if only the people were willing (May, 234). Those who opposed Singer’s theory had it in mind that by continuously helping others, they would be reducing themselves to their level, which would mean that equality would be achieved. They saw Singer’s conclusions as being overly demanding as they would keep giving until they were the same level as those in poverty (Singer, 229-243).
Works Cited
Brown, Mark. T. “The Morality of Abortion and the Deprivation of Futures.” Journal of
Medical Ethics. Vol 26, Iss. 2, 2000, pp.103-107.doi:10.1136/jme.26.2.103 http://jme.bmj.com/content/26/2/103.full. Document
May, Larry. “Sharing Responsibility.” University of Chicago Press, 1992. Print.
Marquis Donald. Why Abortion is Immoral. The Journal of Philosophy, Vol 86, No.4. pp. 183-202 http://links.jstor.org/sici=0022-362X%28198904%2986%3A4%3C183%3AWA11%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T. Document
Murray, Thomas H. “Encyclopedia of Ethical, Legal, and Policy Issues in Biotechnology” John Wiley & Sons.2000. Print
Singer, Peter. “Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Philosophy and Public Affairs”
1(3): 229-243, 1972. Print
Singer, Peter. Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press, 2011. Print
Steinbock, Bonnie & McClamrock Ron. “When is Birth Unfair to a Child” In Hastings Centre Report. University at Albany, SUNY 1994. Document
Steinbock, Bonnie. “The Moral and Legal Status of Embryos and Fetuses” Oxford University Press, 2011. Print
Unger, Peter. “Living High and Letting Die”. Oxford University Press,
1996. Document
Velasquez, Manuel. “Philosophy: A Text with Readings” Cengage Learning, 2016. Print