Why Abortion is Immoral by Dom Marquis - Coursework Example

Essay, Philosophy Topic: Why Abortion is Immoral by Dom Marquis What drives Dom Marquis to argue that abortion is immoral? Before making an effort to answer this question, it is necessary for us to examine the plight of the individual who has to undergo that unfortunate process of abortion which is her private suffering both from physical and psychological angles. Let us first examine how the society treats woman and the disposition of menfolk towards them. Women are equal to men on all counts. Viewed from a special angle, women are more equal as compared to men. A woman provides support to the creative force of nature by giving protection to the fetus for the initial nine months. But the ground reality is unsatisfactory on many counts, the result being women are driven to desperation to go for abortion. The birth of a female child is accepted with displeasure in most of the societies. What makes the girl child insecure and why the female fetus is awarded the punishment of abortion? Case against abortion Is abortion a desired step from the point of view of women? The response of Dom Marquis to this question is in the negative. A woman’s conscience does not respond to the call of abortion normally and her heart is like the oases of love. But hard and unexpected developments relating to her health drive her to that option. During the course of medical examination suppose the doctor informs the pregnant mother that the growing fetus will develop physical deformities and the child will also suffer from mental disorders. Practical issues will also torment the parents of such a child. Who will look after about its welfare, when the parents are no more? Many types of deformities are incurable and the modern medical system is grappling with such issues. The child’s suffering added to the suffering of the parents can be prevented when the mother avails the option of abortion. The economic related to bringing up the child Abortion, just because the parents or the mother do not want the child, should be illegal. A part of the society, and some of the women activists strongly plead that abortion needs to be legalized and it must be the choice of the mother to have the child or not and her decision should be final for termination of the pregnancy. But the author is not willing to accept this stand. The unwanted child can be given for adoption after completing the legal formalities. This is a good alternative from sociological considerations. Why to terminate the life before it had the chance to begin its innings? God knows what the future holds for that child. That child may be credited with sterling achievements in life. From the personal perspective of the woman But when a woman is raped, a peculiar situation develops. Such pregnancies will not be to the liking of the woman. The legal procedures may take care of the individual who commits such a heinous crime, severe punishment may be awarded, but what can compensate the woman who goes through the process of intense suffering? The alternative is to allow the woman to abort such a fetus, if that is her choice. Rape is an emotionally distressing experience. But even in such cases, where the law and order machinery of the state has to interfere, discriminative practices often take place. If rape cases are not honestly investigated, the suffering of the concerned woman is all the more. Why Abortion is Immoral Marquis argues that abortion is morally akin to killing of a human being and aborting a fetus, barring unforeseen circumstances, is morally wrong. He articulates about the philosophical debate over the morality of abortion. Pro and anti-abortionists have arguments and counterarguments and there is no meeting ground as yet. The two camps are adamant on their respective stands. Whereas anti-abortionists very persuasively demonstrate that fetuses typically exhibit many of the same features as adult humans, pro-campers argue on solid grounds that fetuses lack the sorts of features that are generally taken to be necessary for inclusion in the moral community. Killing is wrong but the abortionists argue that terminating pregnancy is not killing at all. Marquis builds up his argument cautiously. He states that killing of an adult human being is wrong and tries to apply the same reason to abortion. According to Marquis, abortion is the abrupt termination of life. It deprives the individual something very valuable, something that has no substitute, or can it be compensated. It amounts to the total destruction of the individual and its future is thus extinct as the life has been ended prematurely. The loss is colossal on all counts to that individual. Each fetus has a future.as such the author argues that abortion is presumptively immoral. It is a serious moral offence to nip in the bud its right to enjoy and allow it to live the full circuit of its life. But Marquis is careful and does not subscribe to the views that abortion is always immoral. He is walking on the razor’s edge while pursuing his argument. The important question is who is to value whose future? Fetus does not own the decision making power and someone else has to take a decision for its survival or termination. But he does not accept the argument of expressly desiring its own continued existence to go against its life. He argues that just because a being does not at the given time value or desire something, it does not follow that that thing is not available to, or desirable for, the being. The author finally reverts to the issue of contraception. He is challenged by the objector that if his theory is correct, then contraception must be immoral. Since contraception is not moral, his theory must be false. Marquis answers this contention by challenging the first move that the objector makes. He argues that nothing is presumptively wrong with contraception, on his account, because no determinate being is dispossessed of a future of value. Thinkers like Dom Marquis, while arguing against abortion (this mainly relates to the issue of female feticide) are aware of the societal mentality that leads the women to take to the decision of abortion. Medical science has advanced to such an extent that the status of the fetus in the womb is known to the attending doctors and made known to the would-be mothers in the early stages of pregnancy. Turn the pages of history of any country. One common feature is women suffer intensively and extensively, viewed from any end and the psychological wounds being inflicted on her are sometimes, more crushing than the physical ones. She is compelled to play the second fiddle to menfolk. The conventions of the society force her to submission and solitude. Suppression of the private ambitions of womenfolk has been unavoidable, for the so-called larger interests of the family and the society. Menfolk utilize the institution of marriage to their advantage. The women, whether traditional or modern, have always been at the receiving end and menfolk are not willing to give her space and do not realize the damage they cause to her psyche due to over-protectiveness or outright suppression of her rights and individuality. She has no life of her own and it is linked to the interests of others. The age-old traditions of unequal status of women in the society has a direct bearing on the institution of marriage and the woman avails the choice of abortion, when she comes to know that the fetus is female as she does not want another suffering being to take birth. Women are forced into take decisions unable to challenge the prevailing conventions of the society. How suffering in the institution of marriage can command respect? The traditional woman has always been at the receiving end and at every stage of her life, domineering influence of her father first and latter that of her husband impacts her life. The women suffers from the inferiority complex as her psyche is controlled by overbearing customs and traditions of the society due to which she almost loses her independent thinking power. This is the springboard for thinkers like Marquis and his opponents to advance their arguments against or for abortion. As articulated by the author, "The purpose of this essay is to develop a general argument for the claim that the overwhelming majority of deliberate abortions are seriously immoral" (183). Both the contending forces, the opposing schools of thought, are into a standoff. The author writes, “The anti-abortionist charges, not unreasonably, that pro-choice principles concerning killing are too narrow to be acceptable; the pro-choicer charges, not unreasonably, that anti-abortionist principles concerning killing are too broad to be acceptable" (185) and he further states “"If it is legitimate for the pro-choicer to demand that the anti-abortionist provide an explanation of the connection between the biological character of being a human being and the wrongness of being killed . . . then it is legitimate for the anti-abortionist to demand that the pro-choicer provide an explanation of the connection between psychological criteria for being a person and the wrongness of being killed . . ." (187) Marquis anti-Abortion argument is simple and straightforward. It is typically seriously wrong to kill us (adult human beings). (189)What makes it wrong? Heres one central thing: killing us deprives us of the value of our future. It deprives us not only of what we value now and would have, given our current predilections, valued later, but also of what we would have come to value (190). Every living being has the past, present and the future. The past of the fetus belongs to those who created it. It is the part of them. Its present responsibility (in the womb) belongs to the mother. After birth it is the ‘creator’ of his own future. It is seriously wrong to kill children and infants (191). It is not the case that only biologically human life can have great moral worth. (191). A fetus too has life, as otherwise it would not have grown. For nine months it grows steadily in mother’s womb. It might be seriously wrong to kill some currently existing non-human mammals (191). Depriving a being of the value of a future like ours, makes killing it wrong. Killing a fetus deprives it of the value of a future like ours. So killing a fetus is wrong. The moral angle to the argument of Marquis is not related to a person or a potential person. It is altogether a different category that has a valuable future like ours with all the human aspirations. No one has the moral right to rob the freedom of such an entity. If it is done it amounts to the arrogance of the power of the mind and misuse of the power of knowledge acquired by the medical practitioner who performs the operation for abortion. In order to establish the conclusion that the vast majority of abortions are wrong, Marquis does not need to show that a necessary condition of the wrongness of killing some being is that it deprives it of the value of a future like ours. He needs merely to show that a sufficient condition of the wrongness of killing some being is that it deprives it of this value. (194-195) Those who object to the argument of Marquis assert thus: A necessary condition for the wrongness of killing a being is that doing so interferes with the fulfillment of the beings desire to go on living. But fetuses dont have a desire to go on living. So killing them is not wrong. (195-196)This argument is self-defeating. Who says that fetuses do not have a desire to go on living? The fact that it grows on a perennial basis (steadily for nine months in the womb) and the mothers adjust their dietary systems according to the growth needs of the fetus goes to prove that all fetuses have the will to grow. They may not be vocal but science must find solutions to understand the language of fetus, and terminating its existence is no solution at all. Another argument against the stand of Marquis is that only victims can be wronged. A victim must have sentience. But embryos dont have sentience. An embryo is thus not a victim and cant be wronged. So it does not wrong an embryo to have an abortion (199). The conclusion that embryos do not have sentience is itself wrong and the scientists are yet to discover the instrument for its measurement. The inability of the scientists cannot be the basis for awarding the ultimate punishment to the embryo. Conclusion If the societal conditions happen to be perfect and women are given the same respect and honorable treatment that menfolk insist for them, no woman will ever think of abortion, barring exceptional circumstances relating to health. Turn the pages of history of any country during the specified period. One common feature is women suffer intensively and extensively, viewed from any end and the psychological wounds being inflicted on her are sometimes more crushing than the physical ones. She is compelled to play the second fiddle to menfolk. The conventions of the society force her to submission and solitude. Suppression of the private ambitions of womenfolk has been unavoidable, for the so-called larger interests of the family and the society. Menfolk utilized the institution of marriage to their advantage. Women, whether traditional or modern, have always been at the receiving end and menfolk are not willing to give her space and do not realize the damage they cause to her psyche due to over-protectiveness or outright suppression of her rights and individuality. She has no life of her own and it is linked to the interests of others and recollection the issues with her life, takes her to the medical practitioner for abortion, especially when the fetus is recognized to be female. Pregnancy creates a new circuit in the life of a woman and opens up unusual dimensions. No religious tenets, no sociological convulsions, no economic solutions, no technological advancement, no feminist theories have been able to eradicate completely the secondary position of women as compared to men and she is compelled to walk under the protective umbrella of menfolk, who have held it not out of benevolence, but as an act of authority. In fine, abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape, incest and the serious health considerations of the mother. It is a complex issue which has bearing on societal values like ethical, philosophical, moral, biological and legal angles. Religious ethics can play dominant role in preventing abortion, which is rampart in the society impacted by materialistic civilization. Fetus is a human being, and just because it in a helpless position, one cannot kill it. It is murder. Abortion should be allowed only when the mother’s health is in a perilous condition and in case of serious birth defects. From the constructive angle, provide sex education, birth control measures to the adolescent youth well in time. The combustible younger generation should also be inculcated with moral values. Marquis, while articulating his stand against abortion, must have taken into consideration all such societal imbalances. Work Cited Why Abortion is Immoral. Author: Don Marquis Reviewed work(s): Source: The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 86, No. 4 (Apr., 1989), pp. 183-202Published by: Journal of Philosophy, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2026961 .Accessed on May 3, 2014 Read More