Marquis
The view that abortion is seriously immoral has received little support in the recent
philosophical literature.
This essay sets out an argument that purports (beweert) to show that abortion,
except in rare cases, is immoral. The argument is based on a major assumption.
Many writers on the ethics of abortion believe that whether or not abortion is morally
permissible stands or falls on whether or not a fetus is a sort of being whose life it is
seriously wrong to end. The argument of this essay will assume that they are correct.
This essay also will neglect (negeert) issues of great importance to complete the
ethics of abortion. Issues like allow abortion when the life of a woman is threatened
(bedreigd) etc.
Anti-abortionists vs pro-abortionists
Anti-abortionists:
- Argue that life is present from the moment of conception
- Argue that foetuses look like babies
- Argue that foetuses possess a characteristic such as a genetic code that is
both necessary and sufficient for human being
They belief that the truth of all of these claims is obvious and that establishing
(vaststellen) any of these claims is sufficient to show that abortion is morally akin
(verwant) to murder
Their position is supported by generally accepted moral principles as “It is always
prima facie (op het eerste gezicht) wrong to take a human life” or “It is always prima
facie wrong to end the life of a baby”.
Pro-abortionists:
- Argue that foetuses are not persons
- Argue that foetuses are not rational agents
- Argue that foetuses are not social beings
They belief that the truth of all of these claims is obvious and that establishing any of
these claims is sufficient to show that abortion is no a wrongful killing
Their position is supported by plausible moral principles as “Being a person is what
gives an individual intrinsic moral worth” or “It is only seriously prima facie wrong to
take life of a member of the human community”
How to deal with this standoff?
Anti-abortionist will defend a moral principle concerning the wrongness of killing
which tends to be broad in scope so that even foetuses at an early stage will fall
under it. The problem with broad principles is that they often embrace too much -->
see the example of “It is always prima facie wrong to take a human life” it seems that
it is wrong to end an existing human cancer cell culture. Therefore, it seems that the
anti-abortionist’s favoured principle is too broad.
The view that abortion is seriously immoral has received little support in the recent
philosophical literature.
This essay sets out an argument that purports (beweert) to show that abortion,
except in rare cases, is immoral. The argument is based on a major assumption.
Many writers on the ethics of abortion believe that whether or not abortion is morally
permissible stands or falls on whether or not a fetus is a sort of being whose life it is
seriously wrong to end. The argument of this essay will assume that they are correct.
This essay also will neglect (negeert) issues of great importance to complete the
ethics of abortion. Issues like allow abortion when the life of a woman is threatened
(bedreigd) etc.
Anti-abortionists vs pro-abortionists
Anti-abortionists:
- Argue that life is present from the moment of conception
- Argue that foetuses look like babies
- Argue that foetuses possess a characteristic such as a genetic code that is
both necessary and sufficient for human being
They belief that the truth of all of these claims is obvious and that establishing
(vaststellen) any of these claims is sufficient to show that abortion is morally akin
(verwant) to murder
Their position is supported by generally accepted moral principles as “It is always
prima facie (op het eerste gezicht) wrong to take a human life” or “It is always prima
facie wrong to end the life of a baby”.
Pro-abortionists:
- Argue that foetuses are not persons
- Argue that foetuses are not rational agents
- Argue that foetuses are not social beings
They belief that the truth of all of these claims is obvious and that establishing any of
these claims is sufficient to show that abortion is no a wrongful killing
Their position is supported by plausible moral principles as “Being a person is what
gives an individual intrinsic moral worth” or “It is only seriously prima facie wrong to
take life of a member of the human community”
How to deal with this standoff?
Anti-abortionist will defend a moral principle concerning the wrongness of killing
which tends to be broad in scope so that even foetuses at an early stage will fall
under it. The problem with broad principles is that they often embrace too much -->
see the example of “It is always prima facie wrong to take a human life” it seems that
it is wrong to end an existing human cancer cell culture. Therefore, it seems that the
anti-abortionist’s favoured principle is too broad.
