Abortion Ethics

by alfredchamichabroscom (student)

University Degree Historical and Philosophical studies

Alfred Chami

English 203-14

19/3/2014

Essay 1 Draft

Abortion Ethics

Every year, fifty million abortions take place worldwide. Abortion, the methodical closure of a human pregnancy, remains a highly debatable issue in modern society. This controversy is philosophically based on the origins of two ends, pro-life, and pro-choice. Support for abortion comes from pro-choice perspectives, claiming that all women deserve free rights, whereas opposition comes from pro-life viewpoints, declaring that one has no right to deprive a fetus from its future of value.

The future of value approach justifies the wrongness of killing by claiming that aborting a fetus deprives it from the future goods it may have experienced had it not been killed. Abortion in this perspective is seen to be as a misfortune since the fetus will not experience the good things life has to offer in the coming future. Some arguments state that the wrongness in the killing is based in the fact that a human is being executed. However, “being human is merely a biological characteristic”(Marquis, 422). Being human, by itself, does not justify the wrong in the killing since, as a biological characteristic, it is the equivalence of being a cow. Other arguments tend to take the personhood of the fetus as the center of the wrongness of killing, thus identifying a “person” to be a human that carries psychological characteristics. Nonetheless, psychological characteristics are seen as biological properties too, disallowing them to, as a sole, pinpoint the immorality of killing. Let us say that it is wrong to kill one since he/she consists of psychological characteristics, with this in account, its is ironically proven that it is more of a misfortune to kill an old man rather than a fetus since an old man consists of more characteristics than a fetus, however, this isn’t necessarily true. The future of value analysis is victim-centered, locating the injustice of

This is a preview of the whole essay

killing from the fetus’ perspective. The wrongness of killing isn’t located in the present, which is instantaneous, but in the future of the victim itself. Superior to other pro-life arguments, the future of value view shows why it is wrong to kill a human but not an elephant or any other animal. It is by fact, that all humans have a solid desire to live, and since it is a moral duty to respect the desires of others, we must regard the desires of all humans to live, thus proving why it is wrong to kill a fetus. Another inferior pro-life approach is the potentiality approach that states that is wrong to kill one since all humans have a potential future. However what makes this approach weak is that potentiality may be either positive or negative, whereas the future of value approach takes into account only positive futures. When we talk about the “future” of value, the future we judge is one based on biological ordinary histories of all human beings. Such future includes a long prosperous life, full of bliss, opportunities, and experiences.

On the other hand of the debate, we have pro-choice accounts, which take into consideration law, social mores, religious norms, family, and other relationships. It is universally held into account that all human beings have the natural right to choose. However, it is more complicated than just stating it. Equality today necessarily requires a redefinition, since it is far-fetched and unserious. Equal rights are seen as basic rights, however, there are obvious biological dissimilarities between sexes, so for equality, one must take into account these differences by introducing special rights. “ The use of a concept of special rights restores meaning to people’s ordinary experiences by permitting the differences to be properly acknowledged in law and institution” (Kingdom, 123). Clearly, feminist ideologies of equality must acknowledge special rights. However special rights we talk about are not

accruing to all, but to woman who actually need the special right of an abortion. Allowing special rights, one must take into account the women’s situation, family relations, and other social contexts. It is very important to continuously highlight that the option whether to be a mother or not is as essential as the decision of abortion. Another approach to woman’s rights would be collective rights, which as a group, tends to protect female characteristics as a whole, however it is ideal to present to a woman privatized rights that narrow down the scope of morality, allowing the mother to have a more personal domestic decision. Pro-choice philosophers find the argument of personhood to be offensive since the approach somehow portrays the fetus to be the equivalent of a conscious human being. “This demeans the moral value of human consciousness” (Peychesky,341.) Counter arguments for potentiality approaches from pro-choice perspectives claim that one, until conceived, has no future of value. ”Acorns are not oak trees, and that while part of our humanity is the reality of death, we do not regard this as a good reason for treating people as if they were already dead” (Harris, 90-91.) Other pro-choice philosopher’s claim that the same way a parent has no moral permissibility to abolish an embryo, the embryo itself has no privilege to inhabit the mother’s body since it is a moral claim that no one should use anyone’s body other than their own, which is what makes incest, rape, and slavery morally unacceptable. The husband’s rights to choose in such situation are insignificant, even though people view maternity and paternity to be the same, they are definitely not. Regardless of the idea that the father is to support the baby, it is not till nine months after it is conceived. These nine months in the women’s uterus are enough to agree that it is fully the mother’s choice.

In summation, abortion till today remains a controversial issue; some view it as morally wrong since it deprives one from his/her “future of value” whereas others find it acceptable since, as human beings, we all have free choice. It is very important to treat this

issue with respect to certain conditions a woman may be experiencing. “A woman’s right to decide threatens the fetus’ life, whereas a fetus’ right to life prevents woman from having a decision”(Porter,86.) This never-ending controversy requires some sort of synthesis, prioritizing one right over the other for a fair solution.