|
Abortion
Mid-term Abortion Essay I figure there's no harm in posting my essay; I've already gotten the 'A' on it that I wanted. Keep in mind, this was my midterm, so the entire essay was written in class under a forty-minute time limit. So here it is, essay question first, then essay. ------------------------ Don Marquis argues that the overwhelming majority of deliberate abortions are immoral. In developing his argument for this thesis, he contends: "a necessary condition of resolving the abortion controversy is a more theoretical account of the wrongness of killing." (Taking Sides, p. 108) After briefly summarizing his theoretical account and discussing its role in his argument against abortion, critically evaluate his argument for the conclusion that abortions are immoral. If you agree with him, the main goal of your essay is to support this thesis by defending his argument against one or more possible objections and by adding some of your own reasons for the immorality of abortion and defending them against one or more possible objections. If you disagree with him, the main goal of your essay is to attack this thesis that abortion is immoral by undermining his argument, and by adding some of your own reasons for the morality of abortion and defending them against one or more possible objections. ------------------------ Abortion is morally just. In his essay, Don Marquis argues that abortion, as the taking of a human life, is murder. He sees the aborted embryo or fetus as a victim and the mother who chooses to rid herself of the burden of carrying an unwanted child as a murderer. Marquis argues that the unborn and unwanted child deserves a future while also suggesting that euthanasia may not be an act against morals because the "victim" no longer believes his or her life holds any more particular worth, and wants to die. If we decide to take this into account, we must also look at the fact that an embryo or fetus does not have the ability to recognize its worth or to want or not want anything. One must realize that until the eleventh week [at the earliest], an unborn child does not have well-functioning brainwaves and therefore is not as human as a child who has just been born. Going back on Don Marquis' claim that an embryo or fetus has a right to a future, one must take into consideration that doctors can tell, pre-birth, whether a child will have or already has certain developmental defects. If it is knowledgeable before birth that a child will be born alive but comatose, is it still wrong to terminate the pregnancy? This child will not have the chance to enjoy life. With that in mind, it is morally okay to ignore Marquis' statement regarding every child having a right to a future. Also considering the child's future, many people claim that every child could potentially become a great scientist, world leader, etc. Then again, what they tend to leave out is that every child could also potentially be a thief, murderer, or rapist. With that first argument in mind, is it then also morally unjust to say "no" to sex when the act may ultimately lead to a child who would one day discover a cure for cancer? Claiming that abortion is murder and that it advocates murder is ridiculous. In 1991, the year when children born right after Roe vs. Wade would be turning 18 years old, the country's murder and violent crime rate dropped heavily. Since then, the murder and violent crime rate has been decreasing quickly every year. This is a coincidence that shouldn't be ignored when suggesting that abortion advocates murder. Looking at it in a Utilitarianistic view, abortion can be justified morally. An unwanted child could be a burden on either its parents or on society. When aiming for overall happiness, the argument that people should "live with their consequences" is absolutely absurd. So the parents made a mistake by conceiving a child they don't want. Is forcing a child to live with irresponsible parents who see him or her as a consequence (and, in such a case, are therefore treated more often than not as nothing more than a consequence) moral? Some people say that a child should be put up for adoption in a case like the one just suggested. Putting a child up for adoption can result in many people feeling burdened. Though unconsciously perhaps, an entire community's (and therefore each individual's) tax dollars will go in part to supporting this unwanted child. The community will also be stuck with the burden of finding a place for the unwanted child to live. The child may live knowing that they were unwanted and that their parents didn't think they were worth raising. The parents may, later on, after the child has found a family to stay with, when it's too late, begin to regret giving their child away (because that's exactly what it is) and be stuck with that emotional strain for a long time. Again, when people suggest a mother should just "deal with it," one could also raise the following hypothetical situation: Say a girl is told many times that she should not skate on thin ice but decides to anyway and, incidentally, finds herself drowning in freezing water after the ice breaks. Should we just tell the girl to "deal with it?" When Don Marquis suggests we're destroying a child's future and considers every human's future to be valuable, he tends to forget about the mother. First, she'd be stuck with a child she didn't want. Second, she may have to leave her job in order to take care of that child. Third, if she's a teen mother, she may be ridiculed by her peers. And fourth, she may never be able to reach some of her goals when she's stuck with the burden of raising a child she didn't even want in the first place. Forcing a woman to bear a child is also invasive of her privacy, as it may very well change her entire personal life in a direction she never wanted it to go. All of these reasons suggest that the woman's future will be inhibited by the birth of this unwanted child. Don Marquis suggests it is wrong to kill infants and babies, and so concludes that is is also wrong to kill the unborn. What he doesn't recall is the fact that infants and babies are much more developed than an embryo or a fetus. An infant is conscious and has the ability to think. An embryo cannot and is not. An embryo is not a human, just as an acorn (or even a seedling, in case the acorn should be compared to the ovum instead) is not a tree. By uprooting a seedling, you are not cutting down a tree. In conclusion, what I've tried to do in this essay is prove Marquis' claims that abortion is murder and every unborn child deserves a future as invalid. Abortion is morally acceptable, because terminating an unborn and unwanted child is not murder and, in the best interest of every individual involved, and in consideration of the mother's future, when looking at it as a Utilitarian, it is completely permissible. ------------------------ So there. For the purpose of emphasis, the only thing I've changed in my essay here is the italicizing of a few words which were written in all capital letters on paper. Other than that, everything has been left the same (typos aside), verbatim. back |
