Abortion Debate

The ‘Abortion debate’ examines the issue from a large number of perspectives. These can be broadly categorized as focusing on at least three frame works: (i) Status of the fetus (ii) Rights of the mother (iii) neither of the two above, but on what constitutes a good life. While the first two frame works are alike as offered by Don Marquis, and Judith Jarvis Thomson, the third perspective offered by Rosalind Hursthouse shifts the debate with the consequence that some abortions would be acceptable, while the others are not. We shall examine the arguments offered by the respective proponents and bring out the contrast between Rosalind Hursthouse and the others.

Don Marquis equates fetus with a complete life. However, he makes no claims either way on the personhood of fetus. He makes no appeal to religious premises either. He derives the immorality of abortion from the fact of the violation of right to life of a fetus, since it has life and beings that have right to life have the right to future as ours. Marquis approaches the issue by criticizing the existing arguments on abortion, and positing his own. Marquis attempts to demolish the standard arguments for and against abortion on the ground of their inadequacy. His objections against pro-lifers/anti-abortionists and pro-choicers/pro-abortionists can be briefly stated as follows: “It is always prima facie wrong to take a human life”. This argument is too broad because it would then be wrong to kill human cancer cells. Similarly, the standard pro-abortionist principle states it prima facie wrong to take a person’s life. This argument is too narrow since it doesn’t answer why it would be wrong to kill a new born or severely mentally challenged.

According to Marquis, we need a sound principle that explains why it is wrong to kill any one, as for instance ‘me’ the reader. A number of reasons may be given for why it is wrong to kill in the first place, all of which might appear inadequate. These reasons may be presented as follows: (i) killing brutalizes the killer (ii) killing leads to the loss that others experience (iii) the loss of one’s life is the greatest loss one can suffer. The (i) reason doesn’t explain the immorality inherent in the action, it merely explains the consequence for the killer. The (ii) reason would still be imperfect for it justifies killing a hermit whose unsung and unheard death will never be lamented by others. It is the (iii) argument that engages Marquis’ attention. It is a sound reason that makes killing, a morally wrong action for the simple reason that such an act harms the victim; harming any one is morally wrong; the victim would be harmed by the fact of deprivation of his future projects, activities, and enjoyment. This would apply to the fetus as well for the fetus has a future, if uninterrupted.