Ethical Issues - Abortion as a Polarizing Issue - Essay Example

Abortion is often a polarizing issue. In the US and the rest of the Christian and the ‘conservative’ world, politicians and electorate bring the subject of legalizing abortion to the fore during elections which often creates a chasm between secular and non-secular members and sectors of society. In fact, the morality or immorality of abortion is so controversial that arguments with regards the issue has infiltrated the areas of ethics, science and philosophy. The issue of abortion, tackled within the boundaries of the aforesaid areas, has been confronted by Don Marquis in his ‘Future-like-ours argument with regards the morality of abortion, an assertion which was later on opposed by Bonnie Steinbock in his ‘Interest View’ argument. While Marquis argues that abortion is immoral as killing deprives the fetus of its future and Steinbock believes that abortion is not wrong based on the moral status of the unborn and its lack of consciousness, their arguments continue to confound rather than illuminate the morality or immorality of the issue. Marquis contends that abortion is seriously immoral as taking another person’s life, as for instance, an adult’s, as it dispossesses him of his future. This is akin to the killing of a fetus. Marquis asserts that fetuses are in the same category as adults with regards moral value. Thus, the immorality of abortion rests on strong presumptions such as on the dogma that killing is wrong. The concept that killing is brutal and thus, it is wrong does not explain the depravity of the act. For Marquis, what makes killing unacceptable is its consequences on the victim as the loss of one’s life is considered the greatest loss. This loss constitutes loss of activities and gratifications which make up the valuable future of the victim. As death divests a human being of the ‘value of his future,’ the most justifiable reason against killing an adult individual is the consideration of the ‘loss of his future.’ In addition, Marquis argues that other living entities and species have similar ‘future’ like our and believes that it is likewise wrong to kill animals. Although he does not support active euthanasia, he admits that killing the ‘very ill or the dying’ cause no wrong. The heart of Marquis’ arguments, however, lies on his contention that killing an infant or fetuses amounts to immorality as they have acquired ‘futures of value.’ As the personhood theory does not put to light the immorality of killing, this notion should be replaced by the idea that killing is categorically wrong. Hence the future of value of an unborn fetus equates that of an adult individual. He delineates the assumption that it is similarly wrong to kill a ‘potential’ person as it is wrong to kill a grown up human. The infliction of pain onto the living, humans and animals, results to suffering and this is what makes killing immoral,. Marquis extends the wrongness of the act of killing to fetal life yet, declares that the use of contraception is not wrong as it merely inhibits the sperm from meeting the egg and causes no harm. On the other hand, Steinbock contests these assertions, arguing that abortion should not be viewed as immoral based on the ‘moral status’ of the embryo and the difficulty that pregnancy inflicts on women. Steinbock views the fetus, or the embryo as non-sentient or without consciousness, unable to feel pain and pleasure. This assessment makes the ‘valuable future’ theory irrelevant as the infliction of pain is absent. The author also argues that if Marquis’ argument is utilized, contraception is equally unacceptable as it deprives ‘potential’ lives of a valuable future. Steinbock gives us the definitions of fetus in contrast with the term embryo and while admitting that abortion during the 24-week period is morally wrong, he queries whether a fetus is equivalent to a newborn baby. He opines that newborn babies have the capability to feel and react while the unborn fetus during the first trimester is not capable of thinking or feeling. If this is so, Steinbock believes that abortion within the first trimester of pregnancy is merely comparable to contraception. Fetuses during the first trimester term are still ‘non-sentient’ beings and the author adds that their future and interests should not be put in consideration as they ‘lack moral status.’ Steinbock’s arguments rest heavily on scientific definitions and allusions. He explains that during the first trimester, the fetus’ nervous system is not yet fully functional and cannot convey pain messages to the brain. Hence, he argues that since abortion is a deprivation of the ‘life’ of the individual, abortion of the life of an undeveloped fetus does not constitute killing or immorality as ‘undeveloped fetus has no life to lose.’ For Steinbock, conscious awareness represents one of the most important definitions of what life is and asserts that what matters is conscious existence, which he refers to as biographical life and not biological life. He goes on further to attack Marquis’ ‘argument from potential’ which he states brings forth problems in logical reasoning. The argument from potential holds that a fetus, with the prospect of becoming a human being with future of value, has the right to life just like other sentient beings. Steinbock counters this by saying that we are all ‘potentially’ dead but there is no logic in treating each other as such and adds that if this argument is applied, we have to view sperm and egg as ‘potentials’ with future of value. This is a result of the premise’s confusion over potentiality and probability because being a person does not always imply having a valuable future. Steinbock also observes that fetuses differ from people who are temporarily unconscious, referring to Marquis’ agreement on killing very ill or unconscious persons, because those in a coma hold a ‘real’ future as oppose to the fetuses’ potential future. He also employs the psychological theory of personal continuity where past identity and past experiences hold much importance. As the fetus does not have past experiences and desires, there is no personal future of value as compared to a person who is temporarily unconscious. This is what he refers to as psychological continuity which for him is imperative in identifying valuable personal future. In contrast, physical continuity, such as the development of the embryo to a fetus to becoming a sentient being, makes contraception immoral as it prohibits physical growth. If fertilization were allowed, the future physical development of the fetus would not have been thwarted. The problems with the arguments presented by Marquis and Steinbock are that, definitions and their supposed logical premise fail to illuminate the issue of the morality or immorality of abortion. Marquis’ premise that it is wrong to kill a ‘potential’ human should be applied categorically to the emergence of life in general. To put this contention clearly, sperm and eggs are in fact alive as the living cells of the human comprise what ‘life’ is about. This only means that a human being must strive to reproduce because if not, they are wasting potential lives and are probably putting a halt to the emergence of lives with future of value. Another problem lies in Marquis’ refusal to define life, the beginning of life and its stages. As this is the most difficult quandary to clarify. While he believes that it is immoral to harm potential life, it was not clear when ‘life’ begins and in what instance life remains unharmed. The deprivation of the ‘potential’ life to live a future of value is already harm in itself. This only weakens Marquis’ thesis on the immorality of harming potential life even though he admits that killing other species and animals are likewise wrong. Since other species in nature holds ‘life’ including the simple-celled to more complex multi-cellular plants, the ‘life’ of the gametes and reproductive cells should not be deprived of future. This only means that using protection during sex such as condom is immoral as it ‘harms’ or kills potential life. The same sets of problems arise in Steinbocks thesis. As his assertions center on continuity of pleasures and experiences as well as past occurrences, he likewise fails to clarify when and in what instance abortion is acceptable. He argues that past experiences hold importance yet fails to consider that past experiences and the continuity of pleasurable experiences would not happen if a ‘potential’ life is thwarted to experience the future. This deals primarily with the issues of semantics. For many of us, the future becomes the present and the past. Pleasure and pain will never be experienced if a ‘potential’ life if thwarted to experience them. The ‘potential’ and the ‘actual’ also present problems as we will never realize or really get to know who or which life has the potential and which one does not. In addition, those who lack moral status are not alive as conscious awareness is not present. This argument is misleading in that many living things do not have conscious awareness and it is immoral to annihilate them although it has been said that they lack moral status. On the other hand, it is justifiable to say that those who destroy life that holds no moral status does not have moral status themselves. In addition, Steinbocks’ emphasis on biographical life as opposed to biological life also poses a dilemma. This is because you cannot have one without the other. A life which is physically developed will develop a real biographical life. Biographical life does not just spring forth from the abyss. Without a developed brain and a proper biology, awareness is not achieved. We have seen problems with mammals whose awareness and consciousness are affected by an undeveloped brain. Steinbock has forgotten that psychology is part of the physical and the biological, housed in the brain and protected by the skull. Hence, Marquis’ contentions that abortion is immoral as it divests a potential human being of its future fails to provide a sturdy case with regards the immorality of abortion. Similarly, Steinbocks premise that abortion is not wrong in the early trimester of conception because the fetus lacks moral status does not successfully clarify the moral dilemma that abortion presents. In fact both of these arguments have warped moral reasoning and deemed it confounding in the end. The issue of the morality of abortion remains a difficult issue to resolve. Yet, the resolution of this quandary cannot be achieved through mere semantics and allusions to scientific premise. It requires more than that. Read More