“The claim that the primary wrong- making feature of a killing is the loss to the victim of the value of its future has obvious consequences for the ethics of abortion. The future of a standard foetus includes a set of experiences, projects, activities, and such which are identical with the futures of adult human beings and are identical with the futures of young children. Since the reason that is sufficient to explain why it is wrong to kill human beings after the time of birth is a reason that also applies to feotuses, it follows that abortion is prima facie morally wrong” (Don Marquis, Why Abortion is Immoral, The Journal of Philsophy, 86:4)
Arguments in favor of abortion give a kind of symmetry to the most common assertion on abortion. They often deduce that abortion can be morally justifiable and therefore it is morally permissible. Specifically, people in favor of abortion counter those who are against it by claiming that a feotus is not a human being. If one believes that only an actual human has the right to life then one must accept that the feotus does not have that right. Since a feotus does not have a claim on the right to life then it is permissible to take that life from the feotus. Another basis that people use to defend abortion is the right of the pregnant woman. Many would say that if a woman is unwilling to carry a child in her womb and if abortion is morally wrong, the woman would be forced to use her body as a place where the feotus could develop. Prohibiting a woman from a choice over pregnancy and reproducing defies the liberty of choice in a free, democratic area and thus, the woman has the moral rights to abort the feotus.
Utilitarianism, a philosophical theory concerned with the benefits for the greatest number of people, can also be used to justify the morality of abortion in certain cases. The obvious case in which utilitarianism applies to abortion is in situations like rape. In any circumstance, the victim, if she does become pregnant, should never be forced to have a child. The main consideration in these cases would be the welfare of the child in the future. The unfortunate baby should not have to be faced with a life of physical and/ or mental tortures brought upon under uncontrollable circumstances. The future of the mother should also be taken into consideration. If the parent of the child deems that she cannot provide her child with a well – deserved decent life, she should have a choice whether to abort her child or not in order to ensure that neither one would suffer or feel pain.
Immanuel Kant’s theory could be used to view the immorality of abortion. According to the Kant theory, a decision should be made because it is in fact the right thing to do regardless the amount of people who will be benefiting from it. Thus, Kant would have been against the act of abortion since taking responsibility of the child, which has been conceived through the parents’ actions, would have been the right thing to do. Kant also argues that in making moral decisions we should act in a way that recognizes the objective importance of every other individual. Therefore, the argument against abortion can be stated by the syllogism,
“It is wrong to kill an innocent human being
A human feotus is an innocent human being
Therefore it is wrong to kill a human feotus”
Abortion is a personal and controversial issue that does not have a definite status on morality. A single decision on whether abortion is a moral act or an immoral one cannot be made because there are many relevant factors, such as the humanity of a feotus, which needs to be taken into consideration. Each individual, however, can take their own stand on the issue based on their own perspective and beliefs.
Bibliography: