The topic about morality of abortion has raised heated debate between the protagonists and antagonists. The term abortion refers to the act of terminating pregnancy before it is due. Several scholars such as Marqui and Sumner have coined arguments bordering the immorality of abortion from conservative and liberal perspectives. This argumentative treatise attempts to explicitly support the arguments against abortion from an ethical perspective. Specifically, the paper will explain why abortion is unethical and should be treated as termination of innocent lives without their consent.
Abortion is unethical in all angles since the act denies the unborn child the chance to experience future activities that have been experienced by the person who wants to abort. This means that that termination of pregnancy denies the unborn child his or her freedom to future outside his or her mother’s womb. Thus, killing it “would be presumptively morally wrong for the same reason that it is wrong to kill a normal adult human being” (Marquis 446).
To support this argument, killing the unborn child through abortion would translate into inflicting irreversible loss to the fetus that will never have an opportunity to enjoy life in the future and experience activities that human beings are engaged in. Although the unborn child may not be aware of the future activities and experiences, abortion deprives the fetus a potential future that is not only valuable to it but to the entire world. For instance, the great leaders of this era could have not made the good decisions that are changing the world if they were terminated during pregnancy. Imagine a world without the impacts of Mother Teresa and Albert Einstein.
If their fetuses were terminated, the world would still be lagging behind in nursing care and nuclear technology. Apart from the contribution to the world, abortion results in complete loss and denies the victim a chance to explore its potential in human form. Since it is morally wrong to kill human being, it is in order to argue that it is equally wrong to terminate a potential person in the form of a fetus.
When abortion is performed at late stage during pregnancy, it exposes the fetus to wanton infliction of pain. In a human being, infliction of pain causes suffering and subjects the victim to unimaginable discomfort. Depending on the degree of wanton infliction of pain, the human being might be subjected to inhuman suffering against his or her will (Marquis 447). In wrapping up this argument, it is in order to state that wanton infliction of pain as a result of abortion is equally immoral since it causes unimaginable pain and suffering to a potential human being against it will.
Erasing the value of a potential human being as a result of abortion is an indication that the act is prima facie wrong, irrespective of the justification that might be put forward to support the act. Actually, abortion is prima facie wrong because the victim is not accorded the chance to determine the action which affects its survival and potential of being a human being. This means that the moral permissibility in any argument for or against abortion should accommodate the right to choice of life by the fetus. The act disrespects the aspects of human life in totality. From a moral perspective, it is unethical to kill human being. Since fetus has the potential of transitioning into a human being in the future, it is morally wrong to end the life of some arbitrarily chosen single human being cells in the form of a fetus.
Although it is morally wrong to terminate pregnancy at any stage, Sumner opines that the damage is highest at the later stages of pregnancy, when the fetus has assumed human form and can feel (Sumner 473). In order to explain the immorality in abortion, it is important to review the moral status of the unborn child. For instance, during the pregnancy period, there is evolution of the fetus from a single-celled organism into a complex form comprising of millions of human cells that are differentiated to create a human-like form.
Basically, “the problem of locating a non-arbitrary threshold is easier to deal with when we recognize that there cab ne no sharp breakpoint in the course of human development at which moral standing is suddenly acquired” (Sumner 475). In this case, it is important to separate the boundary of morality in a fetus in terms of the stage of development. This means that the morality attached to the fetus is dependent on the stage of its development during pregnancy.
For instance, termination within the first three months of pregnancy would lead to infanticide that may not necessarily subject the fetus to wanton pain. On the hand, infanticide from the second trimester of pregnancy would subject the fetus to unimaginable pain and suffering. This means that immorality in abortion arises at the point where the fetus is able to feel pain after assuming human form. Thus, abortion, especially at the second and third trimester of pregnancy is immoral since it subjects the fetus to wanton pain against it will.
Works Cited
Marquis, Don. Why Abortion is Immoral. 2011. Web.
Sumner, Wayne. A Moderate View. 2011. Web.