Impermissibility Of Abortion

Abortion is one of the most, if not the most controversial issue around the world between genders, classes, religions, races and more. The true definition of abortion is the premature exit of a fetus from the uterus. It ends the pregnancy before the fetus is able to live outside of the mother and fully develop. People have pondered over the true meaning of what abortion is and if it should be morally acceptable in society today. People have different opinions over the topic, making it a general debate. Many factors are taken in to account regarding abortions, ultimately giving three common views created by three famous philosophers.

Around the world people have various standpoints as to why abortion is either morally acceptable or not, falling

under the conservative, moderate or liberal views. Although these views have different overall arguments regarding abortion, they share a few common grounds. For instance, murder is morally wrong. No matter what the circumstances may be, killing an innocent human being is morally wrong in all situations. All views also agree that persons have a moral right to life and that a person’s freedom should only be restricted only for a very serious reason. The conservative view stands for abortion never being morally permissible except only if the procedure helps save the life of the mother. On the other hand, the liberal view feels as though abortion is morally permissible whenever the pregnant woman wants it. So for example, if a woman has an unplanned pregnancy, she is able to receive an abortion because she simply does not want to raise a child. These two standpoints are very opposite on one another and in fact people do agree with both. That is why there is more of an in between view that is moderate. The moderate view believes abortion is sometimes morally permissible, and sometimes not morally permissible.
By using various arguments, philosophers are able to explain and go in depth with their side of the spectrum regarding the issue of abortion.

Thompson, a pioneer on the moderate side, suggests that abortion is in fact sometimes morally permissible. Her main goal was to not only argue for abortions permissibility, but to challenge some of the common arguments presented for the impermissibility of abortion. Explaining her goals, she argues that a fetus has a right to life. But the question is what does it mean to have the right to life? Well, in some cases, a right solely means entitlement and in other cases, it means a certain kind of claim that one has against another. Thomson presents that the right to life does not mean it is the right to have the bare minimum needed for survival. Presenting the famous violinist case, she explains the storyline of a person who wakes up and is attached to a famous violinist. If the individual decides to detach him or herself, the violinist dies unless they stay attached for several months to save him. This case symbolizes the correlation between abortion and rape. Meaning, having an abortion, like detaching from the violinist, is morally permissible in cases where the pregnancy is not wanted. Her argument, using the case, claims that abortion in the case of rape is in fact morally permissible. With is then clear that Thomson rejects that the fetus’s right to life outweighing the mothers right to decide what she wants. In other cases, abortion is an unjust killing. However, she does note her argument may not be satisfactory to all proponents of the moral permissibility of

abortion.
On the other hand from the conservative perception, philosopher Don Marquis argues that abortion is morally impermissible except in extreme rare cases. He uses the term “prima facie” morally wrong, meaning an action is wrong considering all other things to be equal. His main goal is to support his claim by using the theory of killing’s wrongness. In his theory, he suggests it is wrong to kill a fetus due to the fact that if so, we would be depriving it of its future. Not only does killing a fetus deprive it of values but the values it could have in the future. Overall, his theory of killing’s wrongness implies the killing of a fetus is seriously prima facie morally wrong.
Lastly, a liberal argument created by philosopher Michael Tooley, denies that a fetus is even considered a human, making it morally permissible to have an abortion. He proposes this claim using the particular interest principle. By using an analogy, he claims it is seriously wrong to kill a kitten painlessly rather than torturing it for five minutes. His reasoning believes that kittens desire to not feel pain, so they have a right to not feel pain. Kittens also do not have the desire to continue existing because they are not cognitively sophisticate enough to want to exist. He asks the question of what properties must a thing possess to have a serious right to life?
The conclusion to this argument maintains the fact that a fetus does not have the concept of continuing self or mental substance, making his beliefs that abortion is indeed morally permissible.
Each of the valid arguments presented by the philosophers seem plausible by the examples and claims given. Since they each have different opinions, it is clear they would have different responses to one another. According to Thomson’s famous violinist case, Marquis would respond by saying it is morally impermissible to unplug oneself from the violinist because we would be depriving it of its future. On the other hand, Tooley would disagree by saying unplugging yourself is permissible since the unconscious violinist is incapable of having an interest to continue to exist. Marquis’s argument, from the conservative side would have different responses. Thomson would say in the extreme case of rape, abortion is permissible while Tooley would agree and add as well as any other circumstances. Lastly, Marquis would respond to Tooley’s argument by saying there are many instances in which things do not have conscious knowledge of their continued existence but it does not necessarily mean they should be unjustly killed.
All in all, these three philosophers have many valid arguments that back up their overall viewpoint. However, the one that is most plausible over others is Tooley’s argument of the liberal side of the spectrum. Going with his argument, I agree that in any certain circumstances a woman should be able to choose the right over her own body.