Abortion Is Generally Morally Reprehensible

Introduction Let me first thank my esteemed opponent for his participation in the debate. I look forward to a stirring and thought-provoking interaction. Before we can even begin to answer the question whether abortion is wrong or not, we have to have an understanding of why the killing of innocent human adults is wrong in most cases, assuming it is wrong. In this debate I will defend the ‘Future-Like-Ours’ (FLO) argument, put forth by Donald Marquis.[6] Which, in the form of a syllogism, goes like this: P1: What makes killing adults and children prima facie wrong is that it deprives us of our future of value. P2: Fetuses have futures like ours. C: Therefore, abortion is prima facie wrong. Argumentation: The future like ours theory The act of killing is to end the life of a human, animal or plant.[7] Killing human beings is now universally considered as contrary to justice, goodness and equity. As Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence says: we hold the right to life to be self-evident and undeniable.[8] But, simply describing it as the loss of one’s biological life is misleading, because the change in one’s biological state does not by itself make killing wrong. One might argue it is only wrong to kill any living organism that has mentation. However, we do not believe that it is seriously wrong to kill, e.g. an ant. Furthermore, this criterion does not allow much, if any, abortion, because of the early development of the brain. It may then be argued that is it only wrong to kill rational, sentient agents. This explanation too faces major problems. It would be to narrow, for it now excludes the newborn, the temporary unconscious and the mentally retarded. Moreover, we are not told much is needed and how we can measure it. As Marquis analyzes, the best account of the wrongness of killing is the effect on the victim; the loss of all thing in life he values now or will come to value in the future.The misfortune of a premature death deprives one of all the “experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments” which would otherwise have constituted one’s future. This establishes the property, namely the infliction of this loss, what ultimately what makes killing wrong. Applying the FLO theory to abortion Scientifically speaking, human life begins at the moment of conception.[9] The killing of a prenatal human being is morally wrong for the same reason as postnatal human beings; it deprives the victim of a valuable future like ours. The fetus and the adult human belong to the same moral category; notto the category of personhood, but to the category of having a valuable future like ours. The future like ours theory is an inference to the best explanation. The account generates conclusions that are consistent with our moral intuitions, avoids the personhood question; the problem of connecting morality to biological or psychological characteristics, does not necessary entail the wrongness of euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research, does not derive an ought from an is, does not rely on the invalid potentiality inference and does not limit itself to biological humanity. It further best explains why we regard killing as one of the worst crimes, our attitudes of dying and unlike the personhood view it directly entails the wrongness of killing of infants and people with episodic loss of consciousness, without ad hoc reasoning. This account provides the sufficient condition why killing is wrong. If my opponent wants to refute this argument, he has the burden to provide us with a viable alternative of the wrongness of killing, with a greater explanatory power and with a necessary condition for the wrongness of killing in order to generate a pro-choice conclusion on abortion. Contention 1: Bodily rights are not generally sufficient to justify abortion The mother holds natural self-ownership of her own body, thus it may be argued that, even if granted that the fetus has a right to life, it is not entitled to the body of the mother for life support. The fetus is considered an intruder, therefore the mother has no moral requirement to allow the fetus the use of her body and may therefore be evicted from the womb. Death as result is then qualified as merely an unfortunate side effect. I will grant that sometimes death as a side effect is morally permissible. For example, when one’s life is in danger, one may use self-defense to protect oneself, where no other means available. It is also true that most women would not object were the fetus to survive. But, most of the time abortion isintentional killing. The fetus is the sole object of abortion, mostly in order to avoid the condition of pregnancy and parenthood. It is not merely withholding life support, but rather acting directly against the bodily integrity of the fetus. Indeed, the abortion only succeeds if the fetus dies.[10] A preponderance of moral considerations seems needed to justify this irrevocable intervention. Where the wish of the woman has only morally trivial or no support, abortion will be unjustified.[11] One might thus object that a woman’s right to use her own body does not entail her right to end someone else’s life in order to do what she wants with her body. The right to life trumps the bodily right, because the loss of the life forever is a seemingly greater loss than the loss of the right to control one’s own body in one respect for nine months.[12] Another forceful objection is the responsibility objection, maintaining that if the woman voluntarily initiates the causal chain by engaging in voluntary sexual intercourse, which leads to someone else ending up on her property, the latter one cannot be considered an aggressor. Therefore the woman has a special obligation to render support for its survival, yielding a positive right to life against the mother. [13] For example, if one accidentally nudges a bystander into the water, he has the special obligation to save the drowning person. In both cases, if X refuses to aid F, resulting in the death of F, then the act by which X caused the need for aid will be worse.[14] Abortion would be like dragging your unconscious companion onboard your plane and then, when the plane is up in the air, order him to jump out because he is trespassing on your property. [15] According to the parental obligation objection we are naturally obligated to take care for our children, even when the pregnancy was not consciously planned. This obligation is not based strictly on biology or explicit consent, but rather on philosophical anthropology; it arises from our role as parents as members of a community. We hold it prima facie immoral for the mother to refuse to breastfeed the infant given no alternatives are available, resulting in its death. By causing the child to be, we hold the parents responsible for the child’s support. Just like the infant has the right to assistance from both the father and mother for providing child support postnatally, so does the fetus from the mother for carrying the child prenatally. Birth is morally insignificant since it is after all just a change in spatial location.[16] Sources [6] http://faculty.polytechnic.org... [7] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [8] http://www.archives.gov... [9] http://www.westchesterinstitute.net... [10]http://www.public.iastate.edu... [11]http://www.jstor.org... [12]http://books.google.nl... [13]http://www.academia.edu... [14] http://www.vmi.edu... [15] http://libertarianpapers.org... [16] https://bearspace.baylor.edu...