Abortion after the Rape - Essay Example

 Don Marquis considers abortion and killing of an innocent adult being in the same moral category. He bases his argument on the assumption of many careful and insightful writers who believe that abortion is a morally permissible act. Scholars like Michael Tooley, Joel Feinberg, Mary Anne Warren, and L.W. Summer among others, forward such assumption. By following Marquis’ argument, this essay will ignore issues of great importance regarding ethical reasons for abortion. For instance, this essay will neglect abortion after the rape and in occasions where woman’s life is under threat, among other ethical reasons (Marquis, 1989). Immorality of Abortion according to Don Marquis Based on the arguments of typical anti-abortionists, life begins from the moment of conception or when the fetuses resemble a baby or when the fetuses develop the characteristic of genetic code that is essential for humans. They believe in the truth of such argument. To them, abortion is same as murder. While looking at the argument exhibited by the pro-choice strategy, they assert that the fetuses are not people or are not social beings. They believe that their case is real, considering abortion as not wrongful killing. Both the pro-choice and anti-abortionists have extreme perspectives on their take relating to abortion (Marquis, 1989). The argument of most anti-abortionists like, “it looks like a baby” makes us have a standoff (Marquis, 1989). The arguments about abortion, therefore, require some adequate backup to avoid such controversies. It is a distinct moral principle against ending a baby’s life. As the pro-choice argue, abortion serves a moral law. The standoff is separating the arguments; by the pro-choice and the anti-abortion, need to be resolved. In dealing with this delay, the standard approach to showing how the moral principles of one of the component lose plausibility by analysis. The anti-abortionist defends a moral principle on the wrongness of killing that broaden the context including the fetuses under it (Marquis, 1989). The broad policy tends to take too much. As it is prima facie wrong ending life of human beings, it seems wrong to end the life of a living human cancer cell culture too. The basis of such argument relies on the point that culture is both human and living. Therefore, Marquis indicates that the anti-abortionist’s argument seems to be too broad. The pro-choicer aims at finding a moral principle relating to the wrongness of killing that tends to narrow down to remove fetuses under it. They end up not embracing enough weight in their argument. Therefore, other standoff presents itself, as the notion, “It is prima facie wrong to kill only rational agents”. It does not explain the wrongness in killing a young child or an infant or the mentally ill. The two arguments are at both extremes. The argument of the anti-abortionists seems to be too broad, as the pro-choice principles are too narrow for acceptance. By both sides, coming to a consensus also tend to grave the difficulties further. The anti-abortionists will tend to rectify their argument by including the word “human being” (Marquis, 1989). Therefore, arguing that it is wrong to end the life of a human being. They support their notion by identifying that the fetuses fall under human being category. An argument arises that something only develops into a human being only after the process of development. Therefore, since the first-trimester fetuses and maybe all the fetuses have not yet developed into full characteristics to be human beings. Similarly, the pro-choice attempts to find the immorality of killing infants but makes abortion immoral They extends the explanation of a person to include infants and young children. Marquis brings us out of this dialectical quandary. He notes that the moral generalization of both sides does not appeal. He suggests that both arguments tend to be accidental generalizations, making moral claims out of the essence of the matter. His argument relies on an account concerning killing. He presents his case by identifying that killing any person, child, or adult is wrong. The brutalization of the act of killing does not explain its immorality. What make killing wrong is not on the effect of the murder or the victim’s relatives and friends. It lies entirely on the victim. The of loss of a person’s life is the most significant loss to the person. It deprives one of the enjoyments, the projects, activities and the experiences that could have constituted the person’s future. Therefore, depriving a person of what he or she values and would have been part of future life, entails the brutality of the murder. The infliction of such loss on the victim is what makes killing wrong. Therefore, what makes killing of an adult wrong is the loss of an adult’s other future (Marquis, 1989). Two considerations support his argument. First, killing is a crime as it deprives the affected victim of more than any other crime. Second, people who have fatal illnesses such as cancer or HIV/AIDS believe to be dying, know that dying is something bad for them. The bad feeling of death is due to the loss of the future that they would have experienced. In harmony, the loss of one's future bridges the loss of the future of other nonhuman mammals on the planet; therefore, it is wrong to end their life too. On the other hand, a person who is under pain, who is incurably or severely ill, is likely to face future despair and pain. Therefore, such a person will not have suffered a loss if killed. According to this reasoning, it is wrong to kill children and infants as we presume them to have a future of value. Accordingly, it is wrong to end the life of defenseless babies. The theory of the wrongness of killing by ending the future of the victim respects both personhood accounts and the sanctity of life (Sinnott-Armstrong, 1999). The primary wrong claim of ending a victim’s future by killing has an obvious consequence on the ethics of abortion. The future of the fetus has a set of activities, experiences and projects that are identical with adult human being’s future, and that of a young child. Therefore, abortion is a prima facie morally wrong. It is not on the category of the personhood, rather in the category of having a future like ours (Beckwith, 2007). An argument on the anti-abortion defended and illuminated by comparing it to the wrongness of pain infliction in animals. It is prima facie wrong in inflicting pain on a person. Pain infliction causes suffering, which is a misfortune. Therefore, it follows that the wanton infliction of pain on animals is something wrong. Abortion is wrong on the account that people value the experience of living and opts for such experience to continue. Hence, discontinuation of that valuable experience is what makes killing wrong. People also desire to continue to continue to live. Accordingly, killing interferes with that fulfillment. Therefore, the discontinuation account and the desired account are compatible with the value of a person’s future (Kitchen, 2013). According to Marquis, the correct ethic of the wrongness of killing a person extended to that of the fetal life. It leads to a strong presumption that abortion is morally impermissible. From the ethic of killing, the ethic of contraception claims that it denies human future of value. Therefore, abortion is immoral. Marquis’s presents a persuasive argument in regards to abortion. The publication explicitly explains the principal basis that illustrates reasons for abortion. The article also explains that just like other forms of murders, abortion also deprives the unborn the right to future life. The author also enhanced the expressiveness by incorporating philosophical considerations concerning morality of abortion. Therefore, the essay presents readers with a broader knowledge of abortion. Notably, the presentation of the arguments by pro-choicers and anti-abortionists creates a persuasive experience of the virtues and weaknesses of the divergent (Marquis, 1989). Marquis’s arguments are also convincing in that he cites ideas and reflect on contemporary issues, for example, the future like ours. In this, the reasoning takes into consideration sustainability of generations. He achieves the persuasion goal by incorporating the emotional attachment of human life and the fetus. Given the nature of the comparisons, he enables readers to reflect upon their lives and ask them themselves what would be the case if their parents had aborted them. Therefore, he manages to persuade humans to treat fetus with maximum respect. He also enhances human understanding about the immorality and injustice that abortion does to the unborn (Marquis, 1989). In addition, Marquis stamps the persuasive nature of the arguments by elaborating on the extreme and permissible cases of abortion. According to his philosophical ideas, abortion is only permissible as a mechanism to save an individual’s life. However, he gives specifications for such extreme cases, adds that the deliberate act of abortion is wrong and deprives fetus the value of future life (Strong, 2012). Implications of Marquis Theory Abortion in any form is immoral. Marquis theory explains that it is similar to killing an innocent human being. Therefore, the arguments partly extend to the case of babies who die because of severe, untreatable, or painful health problems. The assertions are right in this context because the issues above end the lives of entities that have the capacity to become persons and possess futures of value. Therefore, it is morally upright to provide treatment for the infants even if they suffer from untreatable painful conditions. Denying or withdrawing medical assistance to temporarily unconscious infants is similar to murder (Kitchen, 2013). Even though, the Marquis does not elaborate the particular meaning of temporarily unconscious; it is evident that he persuades persons to give their best to save the living regardless of their conditions. Quite often, people tend to terminate medical treatment for small kids with untreatable, painful, or acute health conditions. It is shared acquaintance that it alleviates continued suffering. Besides, people place limited value on small children compared to the adults. However, the philosophical knowledge presented by Marquis illustrates that despite the conditions, it is ethical to offer medical assistance. Nonetheless, an untimely or unpreventable death of a newly born child from such medical complications is permissible (Traister, 2014). In conclusion, abortion unless when performed in allowable statuses, is seriously erroneous. The illegality and injustice that entails murdering of human beings explains the fundamentals about abortion. Truly, abortion limits the potentials of fetuses. On the other side, debates about permissible ideas for abortion are somehow undefined facilitating confusions about the immorality of the act (Strong, 2012). However, Marquis unequivocally demonstrates give ethical reasoning that circumvents frequent ambiguities of human life versus infant’s fetus right to live. Thus, it is justifiable to argue that it is wrong to kill arbitrarily fertilized human cell. Reference Beckwith, F. J. (2007). Defending life: A moral and legal case against abortion choice. London [u.a.: Cambridge Univ. Press. Kitchen, R. (2013). From Shame towards an Ethics of Ambiguity. Sartre Studies International, 19(1), 55-70. doi:10.3167/ssi.2013.190104 Marquis, D. (1989). Why abortion is immoral. The Journal of Philosophy, 183-202. Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (1999). You can’t lose what you ain’t never had: A reply to Marquis on abortion. Philosophical Studies, 96(1):59-72 Strong, C. (2012). Reply to Marquis: how things stand with the ‘future like ours’ argument. Journal of medical ethics, 38(9), 567-569. Traister, R. (2014). Women Before Fetuses. New Republic, 245(19), 26-27. Read More