Abortion Is Immoral

This paper will argue that abortion is not morally permissible. The phrase morally permissible can be explained by the following definition: allowed by principles with respect to what is right and wrong. First, this paper will argue that abortion is immoral and not morally permissible in the religious standpoint. This will be followed by an argument of potential personhood in defense for the above claim. Next it will outline the ‘Future like Ours’ argument that Don Marquis makes in his article “Why Abortion Is Immoral.” It will then refute some common counterarguments that are in favor of abortion such as it being better for the fetus in the long run, and it being the only answer for those who use contraception but still end up pregnant. Finally,
it will conclude that although abortion is still legal in the United States, it is not morally permissible. Abortion is morally impermissible based on religion because not only is it disregarding one of God’s Ten Commandments, but it is also a direct wrong to God because He is the one who creates life. In Exodus 20:13, God clearly states “Thou shall not murder.” This commandment is very clear in itself. The bible also states, a plethora of times, that there shall be no shedding of innocent blood, and who is more innocent than a fetus who has done no wrong nor yet has a mind to even think of doing wrong? Abortion is a direct wrong to God because it is the right of God to give and take human life, and in this case, we as people are determining this for ourselves. God created man and woman in the image of Himself, and for anyone to take away the life of one that He created is clearly an act of disobeying Him. Granted, scientifically, it takes a man’s sperm and a woman’s egg to conceive a zygote that then turns into a fetus but in the bible it is stated that God is the only being who can create individual personhood. For the sake of those who are not religious, let’s transition from the religious standpoint and focus on the scientific approach of personhood to argue that abortion is morally impermissible.
The first point that I will make is that fetuses do not develop like cars. What I mean by this is fetuses have the potential to actually develop human and personal properties and that is their only potential due to their genetic makeup. They cannot be turned into anything else whereas parts to a car can be melted down and reshaped to become objects that do not relate to a car in any way. Another point is that of Peter Kreeft in his article “Human Personhood Begins at Conception.” He states that those who say fetuses and zygotes are not persons say this functionally, by defining a person based on their functions and behavior, especially when they claim that zygotes cannot reason, choose, or communicate, etc. The issue with this functional claim is that it lacks common sense, which more often than not, distinguishes between what one is and what one does thus between being a person and functioning as a person. This is like saying we are not persons when we are in a deep sleep, in a coma, and in early infancy, which we do not agree with. Zygotes must be human beings in order to grow human brains and develop human body parts. Kreeft also states the following: “One cannot function as a person without being a person, but one can surely be a person without functioning as a person.” If personhood was a developing thing, like so many prochoice advocates like to point out, then, in actuality, we are never fully persons because we are constantly growing throughout our life, whether it be physically or mentally. An argument that supports the claim that abortion is morally impermissible without making an appeal to religion nor to personhood is Don Marquis’ ‘Future like Ours’ argument from his article “Why Abortion is Immoral.” Nowhere in his article does he mention religion nor
personhood in defense of his claim. Instead, his argument focuses on the basis of why killing is wrong and who it harms in the process. He states that it does not harm the murderer, nor the family and friends of the murdered, but the victim themselves because it takes away one’s most precious resources, their life. Along with this loss is the loss of the victim’s value of his or her future. Marquis connects this fact about killing to the fact that standard fetuses have futures of value equivalent to the futures of value adults and young children have therefore it is morally wrong to kill a standard fetus. One can make the counterargument that abortion is permissible because it saves the fetus from having a bad life. Truthfully, who is to decide whether said fetus’ life will be a bad one or not? A prominent weakness with this claim is that people fail to recognize the fact that there are options for the mother of the fetus to explore when considering her child’s future. If a woman truly believes her child will not have a great future because of reasons such as lack of money to support the child sufficiently or an unstable environment for the child to live in, she can always turn to adoption. Adoption is always an option, and it does wonders in cases like this. Admitted, there is no guarantee that a child will have a better life than what he or she would have had had they stayed with their birth mother, but it is more often than not better than the alternative, which is being put to death before their life even starts.
Another counterargument made for the permissibility of abortion is when couples take precautions against pregnancy and still become pregnant. On rare occasions this happens, yes, but even when taking precautions against pregnancy people are aware and well-informed of the probability of becoming pregnant, no matter how low it may be. With this knowledge, people continue to engage in sexual intercourse because they believe the reward and pleasure of intercourse is greater than the consequences they can face; therefore, they should have to deal with the consequence of becoming pregnant should it arise. Take this scenario into consideration: an adolescence plays lacrosse with the knowledge that it is an aggressive, contact sport because the joy of playing the game is greater than the consequences of getting injured while playing, but for the sake of precaution, she gets insurance. At her senior night game she gets injured badly and wants to sue the school for putting her in this predicament when she was well aware of it. Sounds absurd right? This is in essence parallel to what happens when people claim that taking precautions against pregnancy qualifies as a legitimate reason to have an abortion. In summation, abortion is not morally permissible. From a religious standpoint, it is morally impermissible because it disobeys God’s commandment and directly wrongs him by attempting to play Him in deciding to take away life. Abortion is morally impermissible from a scientific standpoint based on personhood because zygotes are created with one purpose alone and it is solely for the development of a human being. They cannot become anything else. An approach to support this argument that focuses on the moral justification of the wrongness of committing murder is in Don Marquis’ “Future like Ours’ argument, he ties the wrongness of killing a person to the wrongness of killing a standard fetus because said fetus has the same future of values like ours that is stripped from us when we are murdered. Although the counterarguments of abortion benefiting the future of a fetus and being acceptable for those who use precautions and still become pregnant seem solid, when brought down to all possibilities, they are refuted greatly.