Abortion can be defined as a means of terminating a pregnancy by removing or expelling a fetus from the uterus before viability. Abortion has been, and will always be, a controversial issue in today’s society and in the future. People have always struggled to determine whether it is ethical to abort a fetus; morally permissible (acceptable) or morally impermissible (unacceptable). The polarizing views that are associated with abortion makes this topic extremely controversial.Some believe that abortion is morally impermissible and under any circumstances will it ever be acceptable, while others believe that under certain circumstances it is justifiable.
Many philosophers have attempted to tackle the topic of abortion by providing their parameters on what makes it acceptable or unacceptable. The philosophical views of Marquis, Kass, and Purdy will be analyzed in order to highlight the polarizing views of this controversial topic.In addition, an analysis of my stance will be given based on circumstances provided by the philosophical views and also from biological development principles of science in general and some views mentioned by Thomson, which would make abortion morally permissible. Don Marquis expresses that abortion is seriously immoral with very few exceptions to justify abortion being morally permissible.
Marquis first develops his argument based on the wrongness of killing an adult human. According to Marquis, the loss of an adult human life is considered to be one of the greatest losses anyone can suffer.Marquis states that the loss of one’s life deprives them of the values that they possess at the time of death and also potential future value. The loss of a life deprives an individual of experiences, activities, and overall enjoyment, which defines the overall quality of life. In full, it is the end all to what is and what would be in a person’s life. Marquis also touches on a situation where the loss of an adult’s life that is terminally ill is considered to be permissible.
Those who face a future of pain and suffering are not considered to have a loss of a future if they were to lose their life due to their quality of life or future not having beneficial value. Marquis goes on to link his wrongness of killing argument by placing the killing of an adult human and the killing of a fetus, infant, or child in the same category. Like humans, Marquis states that fetuses and children alike also have the right to a future of values that include the same values of life that adult humans have; experiences, activities, and enjoyment.Essentially, killing an adult human or child, and aborting a fetus have the same consequences- the loss of a future.
Kass emphasizes moral permissibility of abortion on the basis of a genetically defective fetus. Kass acknowledges that abortion is indeed a moral issue, but raises a bigger question asking is it morally permissible or impermissible to abort a fetus if a prenatal screening reveals a genetic disorder. The question Kass proposes comes with reasons to justify genetic abortion of a fetus in order to determine moral permissibility.These reasons include the prevention of genetic disorders, elimination of suffering families, and to preserve financial and medical resources. In a logical sense, the quality of life for the mother and quality of life for child with a genetic disorder is essential to determining the value of each individual’s life.
Kass states that abortion to save the life of the mother is the most defensible kind of abortion due to the idea that the mother’s right to life comes first and foremost. In addition, the quality of the child’s life should be taken into consideration based on the principle on the equality of all human beings.Like Kass, Purdy also discusses genetic risks and reproduction. The difference Purdy emphasizes is the fact that it is immoral to knowingly reproduce in a case where there is a serious risk of passing along a genetic defect or disease. Purdy believes it is our responsibility to provide a child with a minimally sustaining life. By reproducing with a genetic defect risk it doesn’t promote equality but promotes inequality for the fetus post-birth, and is considered morally irresponsible.
The views of Marquis, Kass, and Purdy only partially outline the argument of whether or not abortion is morally permissible or impermissible.At the end of the day, abortion will never be deemed morally permissible or impermissible due to the fact that everyone has a different view for or against it. However, people are entitled to their opinions and as a member of society I have opinions of my own. Based on the arguments presented, abortion is morally permissible only under certain circumstance. First and foremost, as highlighted by Marquis, life is the most valuable asset that anyone can ever possess. Unfortunately, life can be taken without any rhyme or reason and can never be regained.
In light of that, it is necessary to consider the quality of life and also the overall value of one’s life to determine moral permissibility to abort. In the event of a pregnancy in which the two individuals involved are not ready to become parents and care for a child, it can be deemed morally permissible to abort a fetus in order to preserve the quality of life for the individuals as well as the child. According to Marquis, abortion is rarely morally permissible due to the fact that killing an adult human is just as morally wrong as killing a fetus.In both circumstances, Marquis believes that ending one’s life, adult or fetus, takes away current and future values alike which include experiences, activities, and overall enjoyment of life. But if the potential quality of life for a fetus is minimal and had little value, is there any reason to live or anything to be lost? For example, Marquis mentions that people who are terminally ill that face a future of pain and suffering are not considered to have a loss of future because of the quality of life is little to none and their future has no beneficial value.If the loss of life of a person with a terminal illness is permissible due to poor quality of life and little value, could it not be applied to a fetus that could be potentially born into a less than minimally satisfying life, which can be defined as poor quality and little value just like those that are terminally ill? Purdy mentions that there is a responsibility to provide a minimally satisfying life to every child.
If the quality of life is less than minimal there would be no value of life for the child.As a morally responsible member of a society, it is our duty to provide an adequate and a worthwhile life for a child. If a couple, young or old, is not financially or emotionally equipped to take care of themselves, let alone care for a child, then the quality and value of life for the child would be considered less than minimally satisfying, and more than likely depriving them of having the experiences, activities, or overall enjoyment of life that Marquis outlines as the direct linkage between wrongness of killing adults and fetuses to the same category.Therefore, in the case of whether a child could be born into a less than minimally satisfying life, abortion can be deemed morally permissible in order to preserve the quality of life for the child and parents, young and old alike.
Under the parameters expressed by Marquis about the linkage between the consequences of killing an adult human are the same as killing a fetus, can also be applied to the moral permissibility of killing a person with a terminal illness versus aborting a fetus that can potentially have that same low quality of life with the potential to “suffer”.Essentially, there is no difference between a person with a terminal illness with no future to lose versus a fetus that could have a low quality of life; the consequences are the same because no future is lost if the quality of life is low which justifies it being morally permissible to abort a fetus. Also, in the event of a woman being raped, it is morally permissible to abort the fetus due to the fact the woman involved didn’t consent to sex, obviously not intending to have a child, and wasn’t in control of the situation.Most would agree that rape is a morally permissible case and is very self-explanatory.
Thus far, abortion can be deemed to be acceptable in order to protect the quality of one’s life. No child should have to endure any type of suffering, whether it was brought upon by a low quality life or genetic disorders. Kass and Purdy outline genetic disorders that affect fetuses.Kass argues whether or not it is morally permissible to abort a fetus after a prenatal screening reveals a genetic disorder, while Purdy wrestles with the idea that it is completely mmoral to reproduce to begin with if there are risks of transmission of severe genetic disorders.
In these cases dealing with severe genetic disorders it can be deemed morally permissible to abort a fetus if a genetic risk or disorder is present. As mentioned before, the life is the most valuable asset a human can possess.However, if the quality and value of one’s life is little to none, such as people with terminal illnesses, it can be deemed morally permissible to abort a fetus with a genetic disorder due o it also being morally permissible for people with a terminal illness to lose their life based on the fact that they don’t suffer any loss of future. According to Purdy, it is our responsibility to provide every child with a minimally satisfying life.
My idea of a minimally satisfying life doesn’t include children with severe genetic disorders. Severe genetic disorders cause not only the child to suffer, but also the parent. The financial, emotional, mental, and physical strain that the management of these disorders require can severely affect the quality of life for an entire family.The child will have no sense of a quality of life, which leaves no future values to be had. It can be deemed morally permissible to abort a fetus that has a severe genetic condition that causes the child and family to suffer, but morally impermissible to abort a fetus if the genetic disorder has minimal effect on the quality of life for both the family and child. When discussing permissibility or impermissibility of abortion, it is important to acknowledge scientific principles that we base biological life off of.
Science is a field where morals are left outside the building and are prohibited from coming inside the work place. Many scientific principles are based solely on observations and theories from experiments, making the findings exempt from moral influence or bias and more susceptible to criticism due to religion and basic moral beliefs of an individual. It is completely informative and its sole purpose is to educate people of the actual processes of the world in which we live, which include biological processes.The facts are the facts, and regardless of moral belief they will not change whether we like it or not. Every pregnancy consists of a biological development process that proceeds in stages.
Anything that carries out metabolic processes is considered to be alive, which shows no difference between a plant carrying out photosynthesis and an embryo or fetus inside the mother’s womb carrying out metabolic processes at a cellular level. An embryo or fetus being a living thing isn’t as much of an issue as we already know from the cell theory.The cell theory states that all living things consist of cells, all living things arise from pre-existing cells, and cells are the fundamental unit of structure and function in all living things. So with the keyword living being used throughout the cell theory, it is safe to conclude that life does begin at conception since it consists of cells, regardless of what anyone has to say; as stated before, the facts are facts and are unchanging and unbiased.
The big question is where is that point to where we can consider this “thing” a human being.At conception? Formal designation as a fetus? Point of viability? This line may differ from person to person based on moral judgment or overall belief. In this case, I would like to refer to “A Defense of Abortion”, written by Judith Jarvis Thomson, which states.. “A newly fertilized ovum, a newly implanted clump of cells, is no more a person than an acorn is an oak tree. ” This statement simply means that a fetus that is newly conceived is not a human, just like an acorn is not an oak tree.
It has the potential to be its fully developed form of an oak tree or a human, but in its simplest state it isn’t either of the sorts. In the development of the embryo it is formally designated a fetus at week 8. At this point, in a scientific sense, it is safe to say that yes it is indeed a fetus. Before this point, it was a fertilized egg called an embryo and had no human characteristics or features other than a clump of cells that resemble a sea monkey. So now that it has human characteristics, what now? Do we automatically assume at this point it is capable of being a living (viable) human?Many believe that you are human at conception, while others believe that viability of the fetus outside the womb constitutes the fetus as an actual human being. Thomson acknowledges viability in her writing, questioning the ability of a fetus to survive outside the mother’s womb as grounds to imply that it still is not a human being.
At 22 weeks and beyond, according to scientific biological processes, the fetus actually being viable is a realistic idea. Scientifically speaking, abortion is permissible without morale because morale doesn’t affect scientific principles.Permissibility based on science is solely due to what is physically possible (viability) rather than the potential of what could become of a fetus. In closing, philosophically speaking, I believe abortion is morally permissible under the broad argument that stems from the quality of life.
Life in itself is precious, but the quality of one’s life makes that life even more precious. No one values a life that isn’t considered a quality life to them. I have nothing to live for and I hate my life type view is common for person with a less than minimally satisfying life.In any circumstance to where the quality of life of an already living individual is threatened in any way shape or form, it can be deemed morally permissible to abort a fetus as long as the parameters mentioned are justifiable. Such parameters include preventing and avoiding having children with severe genetic disorders that cause suffering for the parents, family, and child, rape, and the incapability of providing a minimally satisfying life. All of these parameters tie into the overall quality of one’s current and future life.
