In addition to Marquis's argument, it could also be added that the pain and suffering that is experienced by humans is usually placed as a higher value than of different species, or of the fetus, in this case. We might be immune to their pain and suffering simply because they are different than us or might experience different types of pain and suffer differently. I claim this because I see it in the immoral treatment towards animals. This is clearly visible in animals that are used for experiments. For example:
Reports from Scientific journals reveal how the Chemical defence Establishment Laboratories at Porton Down, England, tested C.S. riot control gas on animals; exposed monkeys and other animals to nerve gas with horrifying results; shot monkeys through the head with ball bearings to investigate the effects of high velocity missiles.
Sometimes, animals are used for the most brutal and useless experiments as if they have no value or they do not suffer pain. In the light of experimental suffering caused to animals, Peter Singer asks the question of carrying out human benefit experiments directly on humans rather than on animals. Singer states, "The experimenter, then, shows a bias in favour of his own species whenever he carries out an experiment on a nonhuman". (Singer at p.6) Since we are human, we value ourselves and our pain at a higher scale than of other species. Somehow we believe our pain is more unbearable than these animals used for experiments. Also, since we value our pain more, we usually have no problem in carrying out human benefit experiments on animals and treating them brutally. Similarly, this could also be said for the fetus with sentience, since we do not experience the same pain as the fetus does and also we do not value the fetus as much as ourselves, most of us see no problem in killing the fetus. We might also ask ourselves why is it that most of us do not see aborting a fetus that is 10 minutes away from birth same as murdering an infant? Perhaps the pro choice group has a very strong theory behind it.
According to Sumner the ideal abortion policy should ask no questions to a women inquiring an early abortion. (Sumner at p. 8) It is obvious that Sumner would disagree with the future like ours argument, presented by Marquis. Perhaps then Sumner should have made room for the question of giving up the child for adoption. Even though Marquis has not presented the idea of giving up for adoption, it is clear what he would have said regarding this matter. With his future like ours argument, the answer is very clear. His suggestion to the mothers' that have had unplanned pregnancies or families that see babies as a financial burden, would have been the same as I have suggested.
I would like to point out that "women with family incomes less than $15,000 obtain 28.7% of all abortions". In this case one might argue over the financial means. If the financial means are not sufficient, then giving up for adoption should be promoted to these women, which would reduce such a significant number of abortions. According to American Adoptions, abortion could cost up to $2000, while adoption remains free. In fact, all expenses including medical care and living expenses are paid by the adoptive family. Moreover, the mother can choose prospective adopters. Interestingly enough "the number of infants made available for adoption has decreased significantly in the last decade, at the same time that the number of abortions has increased to more than 1.5 million per year in the United States". (Rodman at p. 27) There is a serious lack in infants available for adoption, while abortions increase. It is needless to say that adoption should be promoted rather than allowing abortions for unjustified reasons.
One might rebut against giving up the child for adoption. Possible rebuttal claims could be that abortion is easier than giving birth and giving birth will occupy the women for several months until the baby is born. This is a genuine concern. However, it is not strong enough to convince abortion. While giving birth is a long process and difficult, depriving the fetus of a future like ours is worse. "the future of a standard fetus includes a set of experiences, projects, activities and such which are identical with the futures of adult human beings" (Marquis at p. 192) To carry out an abortion would be to destroy one's life, years worth of experience and enjoyment, which weighs more than the difficulty in giving birth.
People that are not willing to agree that future like ours argument is sufficient enough, might want to consider some external factors. Not only does abortion effect the fetus, it also has very dangerous effects on the mother. Studies show that women that chose abortion have significantly higher rates of breast cancer. "Breast cancer has risen by 50% in America since abortion became legal in 1973". Also, after abortion there are serious effects on future pregnancies. Studies show that women are more likely to bleed in the first three months, less likely to have a normal delivery, the next baby is more likely to be born prematurely and many more could be listed. Moreover, among many health issues, women are likely to experience bladder injury, bowel injury, failed abortions, hemorrhage, hepatitis, serious infection, increased miscarriage and severe rapid bleeding. Thus, it goes without saying, abortion is not safe, it is not morally right and should not be carried out.
Contraception and abortion are usually linked together. This can be seen in Sumner's argument. Though he has made room for Contraception, he has nearly combined early abortion and contraception. The only difference that is apparent to Sumner between abortion and contraception is that contraception is "less hazardous, less arduous and less expensive". (Sumner at p.7) What he claims is of course true, however I believe that is not the only difference between contraception and early abortion. The moral issue being raised in this essay is against unjustified abortions, which is different from preventing birth. While it is true that abortion and contraception both prevent giving birth. There is a clear difference, abortion could be clearly linked to killing an adult and depriving it of a future like ours. While contraception, on the other hand, is merely a method of prevention and not killing. In the case of abortion, pregnancy has begun and a fetus has taken place, which will suffer harm if it is aborted. "Birth control operates before pregnancy begins, and until the sperm fertilises the egg there is nothing that is going to suffer loss and so the issue is very different from the case of abortion." Marquis has commented on contraception and agreed in his analysis that there is nothing wrong with contraception but there is a serious moral issue attached with abortion. (Marquis at p. 201)
Of course someone might want to rebut. Possible rebuttal could be why is contraception not being attached to the future like ours argument? Contraception would be wrong if something were denied a future. Marquis has made this point very clear in his essay "nothing at all is denied such a future by contraception". (Marquis at p. 201) He also states, "immorality of contraception is not entailed by the loss of a future-like-ours argument simply because there is no non-arbitrarily identifiable subject of the loss in the case of contraception" (Marquis at p.202) Thus, it is clear that contraception is different from abortion and does not share the future like ours argument.
In conclusion, abortion should not be viewed as a procedure of removing a lump from a women's body, instead as a moral crime against the pre-birth human. I say pre-birth human because it gives a better understanding of what a fetus actually is. The abortion debate is best understood from Marquis's argument of wrongness in killing us. If one can understand why killing us would be immoral, then it becomes easy to understand the killing of a pre-birth human. The right to life that we enjoy and have taken for granted should be preserved for the pre-birth human as well. Throughout this essay, the morals of abortion are clearly visible. Killing innocent people is immoral and illegal everywhere in the world. Similarly abortion should be not allowed except in rare cases. Women that are avoiding pregnancy should turn to contraception, which is different than abortion. For women that are pregnant and do not want a child, should be advised to give their child up for adoption, rather than abortion. Since, they are pre-birth humans and share a future like ours. Needless to say, the abortion policy should be changed with the eye that is not blind to the right of the pre-birth human's life.
Bibliography
- "BBC Religion & Ethics." Contraception and abortion. 28 Jun 2004. British Broadcasting Corporation. 21 May 2009 <http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/contraception/contraception_abortion_print.html>.
- Damer, T. Edward Attacking Faulty Reasoning. Balmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning
-
Don Marquis The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 86, No. 4. (Apr., 1989), pp. 183-202.
- Dr. Hern, Warren. "Complications you can have with your abortion." Abortion Facts. 2006. Heritage House ‘76. 21 May 2009 <http://www.abortionfacts.com/literature/literature_928YC.asp>.
- "Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States."Guttmacher Institute. 2008. Print.
-
Francois Baylis, et al,. eds., Health Care Ethics in Canada, 2nd Edition, 2004, Thomason Nelson, pp. 347-356
- Rodman, Hyman. The Abortion Question. reissue. Columbia University Press, 1987. Print.
- Sharpe, Robert. "Warfare Experiments." International Association Against Painful Experiments on Animals. 2007. Iaapea. 21 May 2009 <http://www.iaapea.com/warfare.php>.
- Tom Regan & Peter Singer (eds.) Animal Rights and Human Obligation. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1989, pp. 148-162
- "Your Life. Your Baby. Your Choice." Aption vs. Abortion vs. Parenting. 2009. American Adoptions. 21 May 2009 <http://www.americanadoptions.com/pregnant/adoption_abortion_parenting>.
"Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States."Guttmacher Institute. 2008. Print.
Don Marquis The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 86, No. 4. (Apr., 1989), pp. 183-202.
Damer, T. Edward Attacking Faulty Reasoning. Balmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning
Francois Baylis, et al,. eds., Health Care Ethics in Canada, 2nd Edition, 2004, Thomason Nelson, pp. 347-356
Don Marquis The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 86, No. 4. (Apr., 1989), pp. 183-202.
"Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States."Guttmacher Institute. 2008. Print.
Francois Baylis, et al,. eds., Health Care Ethics in Canada, 2nd Edition, 2004, Thomason Nelson, pp. 347-356
Sharpe, Robert. "Warfare Experiments." International Association Against Painful Experiments on Animals. 2007. Iaapea. 21 May 2009 <http://www.iaapea.com/warfare.php>.
Tom Regan & Peter Singer (eds.) Animal Rights and Human Obligation. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1989, pp. 148-162
Francois Baylis, et al,. eds., Health Care Ethics in Canada, 2nd Edition, 2004, Thomason Nelson, pp. 347-356
"Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States."Guttmacher Institute. 2008. Print.
"Your Life. Your Baby. Your Choice.." Aption vs. Abortion vs. Parenting. 2009. American Adoptions. 21 May 2009 <http://www.americanadoptions.com/pregnant/adoption_abortion_parenting>.
Rodman, Hyman. The Abortion Question. reissue. Columbia University Press, 1987. Print.
Don Marquis The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 86, No. 4. (Apr., 1989), pp. 183-202.
Dr. Hern, Warren. "Complications you can have with your abortion." Abortion Facts. 2006. Heritage House ‘76. 21 May 2009 <http://www.abortionfacts.com/literature/literature_928YC.asp>.
Francois Baylis, et al,. eds., Health Care Ethics in Canada, 2nd Edition, 2004, Thomason Nelson, pp. 347-356
"BBC Religion & Ethics." Contraception and abortion. 28 Jun 2004. British Broadcasting Corporation. 21 May 2009 <http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/contraception/contraception_abortion_print.html>.
Don Marquis The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 86, No. 4. (Apr., 1989), pp. 183-202.
Don Marquis The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 86, No. 4. (Apr., 1989), pp. 183-202.