The anti-abortion argument is based mainly on the value that it is wrong to kill another human being, and usually describe abortion as murder. ‘They believe that a fertilised egg is a human being, which possesses a soul from the moment of conception, and has a right to life under all circumstances’ (.
John Noonan claims that fetuses are human beings in the moral sense. However, not everyone shares Noonan’s belief that fetuses are human beings and Warren proposes six characteristics she considers are central to the concept of person-hood. The first characteristic is sentience, which is the capacity to have conscious experiences, and the second is emotionality, which is the capacity to experience feelings. The third characteristic is reason, which Warren describes as the capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems, and the fourth is the capacity to communicate by any means. The fifth and sixth characteristics are self-awareness and moral agency, which is described as having the concept of oneself and the capacity to regulate one’s own actions through moral principles or ideals respectively.
Warren argues that a fetes is not a human being as it does not have any of the six characteristics outlined above, and therefore she dismisses the argument that abortion is the killing of a person. Thus she argues that it morally permissible for a woman to have an abortion in certain circumstances.
Helen Evans
Many people agree that in some circumstances, such as in cases of rape where the woman has been left pregnant, then an abortion is the right choice for a woman. Warren and Thomson both argue that in a case such as rape, a woman should certainly be entitled to an abortion. However, for those who argue that no one has the right to kill another human being, then it may still be considered a moral failing to have an abortion. One strong criticism of the anti-abortion argument must be whether it is fair on a woman to have a baby, and not be given the choice of an abortion, even in a case such as rape.
Although Warren believes that a woman should have the right to choose whether she has an abortion or not, she also acknowledges that in some cases an abortion may be an indecent action for a woman to take. For example, if a woman has become pregnant, but then decides to have an abortion because she decides she would rather have a trip to Europe, having an abortion would be indecent. Thomson’s and warren’s argument that a woman has the right to choose is therefore, not entirely faultless. Warren explains that in cases where a woman could have taken responsibility to avoid becoming pregnant, by taking the contraceptive pill for example, an abortion may not be morally permissible.
Pro-life campaigners have argued for many years that abortion is wrong because the killing of another human being is wrong. However, before considering this argument, it would be beneficial to examine what it is that makes killing us wrong. Don Marquis puts forward the ‘future like ours’ argument, which states that killing someone is wrong because it deprives that person of their future and the life they would have lived if they had lived their natural life span. Marquis explains more specifically that it is the loss of a future conscious life which makes killing a person wrong, as opposed to the loss of a future biological life. Marquis also states that ‘the misfortune of premature death consists of the loss to us of the future goods of consciousness’ (Marquis, 1997, p.87). He describes the goods of life as the things the make life worth living and the things we have done that we are proud of. Marquis argument is that abortion is wrong because it results in premature death, which he considers morally wrong.
Helen Evans
There are at least four arguments, according to Marquis, which support the FLO account of the wrongness of killing. These arguments are the considered judgement argument, the worst of crimes argument, the appeal to cases argument and the analogy with animals argument.
The considered judgement argument supports the FLO account because it ‘fits with our considered judgement concerning the nature of the misfortune of death’ (Marquis, 1997, p.87). The worst of crimes argument claims that the ‘FLO account of the wrongness of killing is correct because it explains why we believe killing is one of the worst of crimes’ (Marquis, 1997, p.88). Killing someone deprives them of the value of their future and this is much worse than being robbed or beaten.
The FLO account also answers many life and death cases in the medical field, and this is supported by the appeal to cases argument. The FLO account answers, for example, why it is ok to switch off a life support machine from a permanently comatose patient, knowing it will result in death. The FLO account suggests that the patient would not lose out on any future as they have no future, and therefore to kill them would not be considered wrong. The analogy with animals argument supports the thesis that abortion is wrong as to deprive any human being, or non human being, of their future is wrong, be they black or white, male or female and so on.
However, these four arguments are not without their objections, and the main arguments that oppose the FLO account are the potentiality objection, the argument from interests, the problem of equality, and the contraception objection.
The strongest of these objections is the latter of the four, which states that ‘because contraception results in one less FLO, the FLO argument entails that contraception, indeed, abstention from sex when conception is possible, is immoral’ (Marquis, 1997, p.91). However, the FLO account is flawed because contraception and abstention from sex when conception is possible is not immoral.
Helen Evans
People who agree with the contraception objection argue that the sperm and the egg are the individuals deprived of an FLO when contraception is used, and deprives them of a future. Therefore, the FLO theory states that contraception is wrong.
Virtue ethicists argue that whether women have a moral right to terminate their pregnancies is irrelevant, and the question should be ‘in having an abortion in these circumstances, would the agent be acting virtuously or viciously or neither?’ (Hursthouse, 1997, p.98). Rosalind Hursthouse, a virtue ethicist, describes a virtue as ‘a character trait a human being needs to flourish or live well’ (Hursthouse, 1997, p.95). The character traits of a virtuous woman are described as being traits such as strength, determination, self-confidence, responsibility and decisiveness, and Hursthouse claims that when a woman lacks one of these character traits she may then find herself in the position of having an abortion. Therefore, even if the decision to have an abortion is the right decision for the woman, Hursthouse argues that it can still be a moral failing because to get herself in the situation in the first place may have been due to a lack of a virtuous character trait.
This is not to say that abortion is always morally wrong, but again that in some cases, such as rape, it may be the only choice. Acting virtuously is the focal point of virtue ethics, and if a woman is acting virtuously by having an abortion, then it is considered morally just for the woman to have the abortion. However, if it is considered a non-virtuous act, for instance the abortion is needed because the woman doesn’t want to ruin her figure, then it is considered morally wrong by virtue ethicists.
However, following the virtue theory may not make it any clearer as to whether abortion is morally right or not, but instead makes the claim that in some circumstances it may be. Another problem is what is actually mean by a ‘virtuous act’. People may disagree about what a virtuous act is, and when one person decides it is virtuous to have an abortion, another may consider it non-virtuous in the same situation.
Helen Evans
Abortion is a topic that will be argued within society for many years to come. Different religions, philosophical views and moral standings will all affect a person’s view on the topic. In my own opinion, it is morally acceptable for a woman to have an abortion in certain circumstances, as many people argue. In cases such as rape, I believe that it is totally unjust not to give a woman the choice to terminate a pregnancy she had forced on her.
I also agree with Warren that women have a right to choose what happens to their body, and abortion is part of that choice. To deny a person the right of freedom of choice is in itself morally unacceptable, although in certain situations it can be morally unacceptable for a woman to have an abortion.
Therefore, abortion is morally acceptable if the reason behind having one is a worthy enough reason to justify the abortion. There can be no definite yes or no answer as to whether it is morally acceptable to have an abortion or not. Instead, it would appear to be based on the circumstances and the situation the woman is in, and each case of abortion should be looked at individually.