Resolved: Abortion should stay legal in the U.S.A.

Preliminary remarks: Before I present my three main arguments, I just wanted to note that moral philosophy informs or at least attempts to inform our legal actions. That is why I will rely heavily on the philosophical aspects to the question of whether or not abortion should be legal in the U. S. Argument 1: “A Future Like Ours” This argument is probably one of the more well known anti-abortion argument in philosophical circles developed by moral philosopher Don Marquis. The argument goes like this. In order to understand the abortion debate better, it is essential to first find common ground and identify why murder is wrong, not that murder and abortion are equivalent at this point. We may consider murder wrong because we may believe that it is wrong to take people away given the effect on family, friends, and society or that it is a barbaric act, or whatever the reason may be. Marquis argues that none of those reasons get at the core of why murder is wrong, but what makes it prime facie morally wrong is that it takes away the future of a being that shares a “future like ours. ” This is, according to Marquis, the natural property that defines murder as prime facie morally wrong since it ends the future of the victim [1]. A natural property is a property, which is in agreement with our moral intuitions, and best explains why something is morally wrong [2]. The application this argument has for abortion is that fetuses possess this property of “future like ours. ” My opponent may go the Michael Tooley or Paul Bassen route and argue that the fetus has no mental, rational, or sentient activity to be aware of its/her/his future; however, this objection would fall short because we can think of cases such as comma patients where no one may be sure the patient will ever wake up [3]. In this paradigmatic case, the natural property of a “future like ours” is still seen in that family or doctors would at least wait to make sure they do not end the future of the patient. Or we can look at the example of a terminally sick patient. While the suffering the patient endures is painful, it is the loss of his/her future that is most bothersome. Argument 2: A Hybrid Argument This argument is based on Kantian and Aristotelian moral philosophy. As far as I know and researched, I do not believe a philosopher has synthesized both philosophers’ arguments into one argument against abortion although I could be wrong. I am in no way trying to steal this argument in case it is out there. First, Kant’s moral philosophy can be described in two main arguments, which are the categorical imperative and the kingdom of rational ends. I am going to primarily focus on the latter. But first it is essential to note that metaphysics informs morality. In other words, the study of ultimate reality should correspond to moral principles. Our moral principles should not be based off of emotional or purely subjective whims but rather have firm grounding in reality independent of our opinions [4]. For Kant, the kingdom of rational ends focuses on the status of people. The words “dignity” and “value” are often thrown around in abortion debates without much context or clarification. Under Kantian moral philosophy, value is replaceable by another equivalent value while dignity is an intrinsic worth. This dignity stems from the rational nature of the creature and what informs the autonomy of the creature [5]. The kingdom of rational ends would thus entail that humans cannot be morally viewed as means to an end. Killing someone is wrong because the victim ends up becoming a means to an end; the end being the killer’s reason for murder (money, vengeance, crime of passion, etc. ). I suspect at this point my opponent is thinking that a fetus or embryo is not a rational creature; therefore, even if Kant succeeds, abortion may still be permissible. However, this objection may fall short with a hybrid argument that involves Aristotelian metaphysics. Aristotle argued that there are two ways things form and matter exist which is potentiality and actuality. For Aristotle, potentiality is a “capacity to be in a different, complete state”[6] while actuality is the completed state. For instance, I have the potentiality to be an astronaut; however, if I do not provide the necessary conditions to nurture this potentiality, then I will probably not become an astronaut. A fetus however has a natural potentiality of being in the rational kingdom of ends unlike my potentiality of being an astronaut. More simply, the fetus has the intrinsic property of “natural potentiality to the kingdom of rational ends. ” Final Argument: Roe v. Wade and the Right to Privacy The landmark Roe v. Wade case concluded that women have a right to have an abortion as a right to privacy. Effectively, the fetus was not considered a human being and therefore not protected under the constitution. Henry Blackmun, one of the nine Supreme Court Justices, noted that “The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. ” (Opinion of the Court Section IX)[7]Of course the pro-choicer could argue against this justification or even concede that the embryo or fetus is a person in the sense that it is a part of the human species on a speciesist account; however, the Roe v. Wade conclusion is still undermined because the justification according to Blackmun was that the fetus was not a person. At best for the pro-choice advocate, Blackmun’s justification leaves the legal decision unresolved. Sources:[1] "Why Abortion is Immoral," Journal of Philosophy, Volume 86, p. 194[2] Ibid, p. 190[3] Ibid, p. 198[4] Today’s Moral Issues: Classic and Contemporary Perspectives, "The Kingdoms of Ends," 7th edition, p.41[5] Ibid[6] “Actuality and Potentiality,” . http://plato.stanford.edu...[7] . http://law2.umkc.edu...