The Morality Of The Abortion Of A Fetus

One of the most frequently debated topics in bioethics is the morality of abortion, or the ending of a pregnancy without physically giving birth to an infant. Often times abortions are categorized into either spontaneous, a natural miscarriage; induced or intentional, which is premeditated and for any reason; or therapeutic, which albeit intentional, its sole purpose is to save the mother’s life. It seems however that moral conflicts on issue mainly arise when discussing induced abortions. In general, people universally agree it is morally wrong to kill an innocent person and in some people’s eyes induced abortions are the intentional killings of innocent persons, thus making them immoral. However not all individuals view fetuses as persons and consequentially argue it is not morally wrong to kill them.

Don Marquis agrees with anti-abortionists that abortion is morally wrong, but finds that they are not making the right arguments to justify this. There is much debate over what comprises a human being or when a fetus becomes a person, and if only a human life is of great value, so I will use the general term “X” to present Marquis’s overall argument. If X has a future like ours which has great value, then depriving X of that future is immoral. X has a future like ours, thereby making it immoral to kill X. Obviously, this is a broad argument defending the anti-abortionist viewpoint. In this case, X is a fetus, so the argument becomes much more specific. If a fetus has a future like ours which has great value, depriving a fetus of this future is morally wrong. A fetus has a future like ours, so killing the fetus is morally wrong.

In On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion, Mary Anne Warren discusses a few arguments against abortion, namely bringing into play whether the fetus is actually a person, or “not a member of the moral community”. She

There are many common pregnancy alternatives, but most often the resulting decision is abortion because it is effortless. Abortion is endings a women’s pregnancy by removing or forcing a fetus or embryo from the mother’s womb before it is able to survive on its own. Not all abortions are purposely done some are spontaneous like when a women that has a miscarriage. Rather abortion is done purposely or naturally it is a worldwide complication as to it being wrong or right. Abortion is an ethical issue that will be analyzed according to a personal worldview and Christian worldview. Ethical thinking will be examined by value-based decisions that address abortion from the perspective of a Christian worldview and comparing it to a personal assumption by addressing ethical dilemma, core beliefs, resolution, evaluation, and comparison.

Using a new and intriguing approach, Don Marquis refutes many of pro-choice claims, including the likes of Thomson and Warren, by not arguing whether a fetus is a person or if it has moral rights, but rather justifying the fact that the unborn child has a future and it would be immoral of us to deprive the child of it. Marquis makes it very clear to the readers that he in no way shape or form is for abortion, and is only okay with it under certain circumstances. Subsequent to distinctly stating his position, he explains beliefs that both pro-lifers and pro-choicers differ on which are whether a fetus is a person from the moment it is conceived and whether it obtaining more human characteristics has an effect on the decision. After carefully dissecting both sides argument logically he concludes that one side is way too broad with their statements and the other is just way too vague to make a final decision, so he looks into another aspect overall, whether the action of aborting is considered murder if at all.

The debate about abortion focuses on two issues; 1.) Whether the human fetus has the right to life, and, if so, 2.) Whether the rights of the mother override the rights of the fetus. The two ethicists who present strong arguments for their position, and who I am further going to discuss are that of Don Marquis and Judith Thomson. Marquis' "Future Like Ours" (FLO) theory represents his main argument, whereas, Thomson uses analogies to influence the reader of her point of view. Each argument contains strengths and weaknesses, and the point of this paper is to show you that Marquis presents a more sound argument against abortion than Thomson presents for it. An in depth overview of both arguments will be

In his essay Why Abortion is Immoral Don Marquis attempts to argue that abortion is almost always wrong except for a few special circumstances such as when the life of the mother is being threatened by the pregnancy. In his thesis Marquis asserts that abortion is in the same moral category as killing an innocent adult human being and the ethics of abortion is solvable. The strongest argument that Marquis presents to defend his thesis is the claim that what makes killing wrong is the loss of the victim’s future. In this paper, I will argue that this argument fails because aborting a fetus is not in the same moral category as killing an innocent adult human being.

In “Why Abortion is Immoral,” Don Marquis argues that abortion is immoral because it denies the victim, which is the fetus or embryo, of their right to a future-like-ours. He argues that killing is prima facie wrong, and that this logic can be applied to a fetus. In this paper, I will address the ambiguity within the future-like-ours theory, which I will refer to as the FLO theory, and argue that the fetus’ right to a future of value does not override and should not be prioritized over the right to a future of value for the fetus’ host, which is the mother.

The moral status of the fetus has been uncertain throughout Western history and beliefs “that abortion is a moral matter and that, in principle, abortion is always wrong.” (Becker. Pg. 152) Abortion has been linked to murder due to beliefs that the fetus is “moral equivalents of the child it will become.” (Luker,

One of the most contentious debates in modern politics revolves around abortion. Pro-Life supporters believe that they are protecting human lives while Pro-Choice advocates maintain they are supporting women’s rights. However, both of these sides clearly do not fully understand the issue. Not only should abortions be legal, they should be mandatory (“Pro-Death”). This Pro-Death paper illustrates why it bringing a child into this world is an ethically impermissible decision. By giving birth, one not only subjects a baby to a lifetime of pain, but also shows that they abhor the Earth as well.

When faced with the choice of life or death, most people would choose to live. In fact, most would not want someone else making that decision for them. They would claim that as a living and independent entity it is solely their choice as to whether they continue to live or not. While this concept may seem fairly straightforward, there seems to be some great debate when it is applied to abortion. For many, they will maintain that the fetus has the right to life no matter the situation. There are some who will argue that abortion is morally permissible in specific circumstances and there are even those that will claim that abortion is always permissible. Why is there such a great divide? A major factor that plays a part in this is whether abortion involves more than one life. Because determining the beginning point of life is such a complex and emotional debate, there will be the same allowance in this paper as there was in Judith Jarvis Thomson’s “A Defense of Abortion”. As she eloquently put it “I propose then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception” (p. 721). This will allow for a look into the moral debate of abortion from a more grounded stage. As discussed early in Thomson’s paper, most of the debate on abortion rests on whether the fetus is alive or not. Whereas the focus should be on the many other aspects of pregnancies that may lead to a mother wanting an abortion.

Ethics can be defined as a set of principles which dictate what is considered as morally ‘good’ and ‘bad’. Abortion is defined as the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy through a medical procedure which results in the death of a fetus. Within ethics, there are many arguments as to whether abortion should be permitted in society as many regard it as an act of murder and others simply see it as a decision that should be given to the mother only. The issue of abortion remains to be one of the most controversial topics in society, which causes an inevitable clash of opinion. Through the exploration of philosophical principles, we are able to evaluate the origins of such opinions. In the same way, utilitarianism equates wrongness or blameworthiness of an action with its resultant pain or unhappiness. The central principle of utilitarianism expresses the belief that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. Since utilitarianism differentiates ethical and unethical actions on the basis of the outcomes of those actions, it falls into the consequentialist class. With this belief, utilitarianism challenged traditional views that abortion was an 'evil ' act, arguing instead that the end justifies the means. In contrast, the deontologist would consider the intent of the person seeking an abortion in evaluating its ethical standing. In addition to this, postmodernism argues that, since there is

A common debate in the world today involves abortion, the deliberate end of human pregnancy, and whether or not it should be legalized. “Every year in the world there are an estimated 40-50 million abortions. This corresponds to approximately 125,000 abortions per day” (“Abortions Worldwide this Year”). On one side of the argument, people are not disturbed by this grotesque number, and on the other side there are people outraged and simply appalled. Although people attempt to deem abortion acceptable in society because of circumstances like the mother not being able to support the child or in instances of rape, it is still morally wrong.

The ideological bent of the state’s message is further shown by the statute’s use of what can be described as “loaded” language. The statute refers not to a “fetus” or an “embryo,” but to a “child,” despite the fact that “child” is not the medically appropriate term for a fetus too young to survive outside the womb. While one might argue that this is mere semantics, it is fair to say that much of the political debate surrounding abortion access is fought over semantics—that “the morality of abortion [turns on] whether a fetus is a person . . . .” Because of the critical nature of the language involved, requiring physicians to use language such as “child” is meaningful. Describing the use of similar language in a South Dakota speech-and-display

Abortion is one of the hottest topics discussed today. Everyone has an opinion on it. Some people say that it’s immoral; others say that it isn’t. The purpose behind this paper is to expose the reader to both sides of the “Is abortion a moral or immoral act?” argument, using moral theories to back up the arguments. This gives the reader a different view of both sides of the argument. I will also give my opinion at the end. Everyone and their mother has heard the traditional “Abortion is wrong because the bible says so” argument. Being able to see arguments stemming from a range of recognized theories might help clear up the controversial topic that is abortion.