Killing of the Fetus is Wrong
Introduction
Abortion can be described as the action of termination of life during pregnancy through medicine, surgery or even any other means so that it does not resort to birth of a baby. Notably, philosopher Don Marquis suggests that the killing of the fetus is practically and morally unaccepted whereby he equals it to murder. On the other hand, some of his idea could be disapproved considering the circumstances that has led an individual to procure the abortion. This make abortion prima facie wrong. Notably, all human beings regardless of their race, gender, religion, and age have the right to life and in this relation the fetus are certainly human and not any other species (Noonan,1970; Beckwith,1993).
In the first place, Marquis considers abortion as being morally inappropriate as this is an act a of killing a being with the right to life and by so doing you are denying the being its right to a future .At the same time killing of the fetus deprives it the opportunity to enjoy all there is to life like recreations, enjoyment and all the activities that add up to a better life. He also argues that killing brutalizes the killer who in this case could the mother and as well makes her psychologically stigmatized as well as lowering her esteem .It defaces the image of the mother who chooses to kill their children and ends up committing a very serious sin Biblically. Bearing in mind a fetus is not really a being it is the group of cells that will lead to the birth of a human being and this be equal to murder of a fully grown human being.
In the same context, women have the right to control whatever happens to their own bodies, but this right is overridden by the right to life because it involves the killing of a fellow human being who just happens to be very young and weak as well. This beats the logic to enjoy your very own rights at the expenses of another person’s life denying them the opportunity to enjoy equal and legal right just like you do.
In contrast, this idea that has been brought forward by marquis no matter how right it seems, it still has its own share of shortcomings which could make it be disapproved. One of the reason is because the fetus solely depends on the woman’s body which is not fair for it to exist in the woman’s body if she is not ready to keep it, just like Judith Thomson invites us to join an imagination that we are connected bloodstream to blood stream to a famous violinist while we are a sleep, and the violinist suffer from a rare blood illness and will die if he is disconnected from you. She contends that you surely have the right to have your body disconnected from the violinist keeping in mind that it is too much for morality to demand that you have to remain sleeping in bed with the violinist whereas it is your body that is being used and not the violinist’s body. Although the violinist has the right to life, he does not have the right to use somebody else body when it is important to save their life. She suggests that one is not more obligated to remain connected to the fetus than remain connected to the body of the violinist who is also a living being. (Judith Thomson ,1971).
Practically, Marquis’s idea of the fetus having a future like ours and that by killing it through abortion would deprive it of a great future and the goodness that life offers. It is not realistic considering that their great future is not guaranteed , as there still is a chance for them having to die pre maturely. Notably, their future is not guaranteed to be great since in their future as adults they may get a terminal illness like cancer which would mean both physical and emotional suffering, they would have been spared the pain if an abortion would have been procured. in the same context it is assumed that the fetus will have a great future but this may not always be the case as in future the individual may turn out to bring harm to to the society for example becoming a terrorist or a serial killer and take the life of others.
There are some situations where abortion can be allowed, for example in a situation where the woman is a victim of rape. Abortion in this case is morally permissible (Warren, 1973,Steinbock, 1992,). Considering that the issue of biological parenthood should be voluntary, and one must have played at least one role that leads to biological parenthood. In a situation where one did not play any role then abortion would be rendered permissible. In contrast, if consensual sex took place abortion is not permissible as one already knows the consequences of the action even if they did not want to be biological parents. Similarly, abortion can also be permissible if it is done with the first fourteen days of pregnancy as it is contended that at this time the fetus formed at conception is no definitely an individual especially if keeping the pregnancy will put the life of the mother in danger. This is because stage the fetus is just a mass of cells and not yet an individual .it is morally acceptable to save the mother’s life who has a future than risking both lives and end up loss both since the at this stage the fetus can not exist by its self-outside the mothers body.
.
Conclusion
This paper shows that it is evident that abortion is morally not permissible unless in unique situation it shows that killing of the fetus is just the same as killing a fully grown human being.
References
- Burger, M. M., & Noonan, K. D. (1970). Restoration of normal growth by covering of agglutinin sites on tumour cell surface. Nature, 228(5271), 512-515.
- Derman, A. I., Prinz, W. A., Belin, D., & Beckwith, J. (1993). Mutations that allow disulfide bond formation in the cytoplasm of Escherichia coli. Science, 262(5140), 1744-1747
- Marquis, D. (1989). Why abortion is immoral. The Journal of Philosophy, 86(4), 183-202.
- Thomson, J. J. (1971). The time of a killing. The Journal of Philosophy, 68(5), 115-132.
- Warren, M. A. (1973). On the moral and legal status of abortion. The Monist, 57(1), 43-61.