Our Politics

Tag: abortion

  • Bonnie Steinbock “Most Abortions are Morally Legitimate” Textual Analysis

    Bonnie Steinbock “Most Abortions are Morally Legitimate” Textual Analysis

    In the 2005 article “Most Abortions Are Morally Legitimate,” Bonnie Steinbock puts forward an argument stating that abortion is in fact morally justified in most cases. Steinbock begins by declaring that her belief on the morality of abortion is based on two considerations which are the moral status of the embryo and the fetus and the burdens imposed on women through pregnancy and childbirth. Steinbock also puts forward the interests view, which limits moral status to people who have interests in their future and restricts the possession of interests to people who are conscious of the world around them. Following the logic presented by the interest view, Steinbock argues that fetuses are not conscious enough to understand their interests and that it is not morally wrong to kill a fetus when there is an adequate reason for doing so. Steinbock further discusses the view on abortion possessed by Don Marquis and argues that it is wrong because it attempts to claim that a fetus is a conscious living being and that it would be immoral to kill an unborn child even though they have no awareness of their interests and the outside world.

    Bonnie Steinbock first discusses the moral status of a fetus. Many opponents of legalized abortion tend to argue that abortion is an unethical practice because they view it as the killing of an innocent person. Additionally, abortion opponents do not see any difference between a fetus during the early stages of pregnancy and a newborn child. Following such logic, it could be argued that if it is morally wrong to kill a young child, it would also be morally wrong to kill a fetus through abortion. In contrast, Steinbock asserts that killing a fetus is morally different than killing a newborn baby because fetuses are not sentient beings because they cannot experience pain or pleasure. Steinbock states that being sentient is important because non-sentient beings lack interests of their own. As such, non-sentient beings should not be categorized among those whose interests people are required to consider in their day-to-day actions.

    The main point of criticism regarding the interest view, according to Bonnie Steinbock, is that opponents tend to ask why a being must experience or feel anything to have a unique set of interests. Steinbock argues that the main flaw with this approach is that it misconceives the interest view because the interest view can acknowledge that certain non-sentient beings and objects have value and that people have all kinds of reasons to protect and preserve any non-sentiment beings and objects. Additionally, the main difference between sentient and non-sentient beings is that because non-sentient beings have no feelings and cannot be made to suffer, it does not matter what is done to them and in people deciding what they can do, they should not consider their interests because they do not have any. The interest view relates to the morality of abortion because most scientists agree that fetuses in the early gestation phase do not have feelings and understand their interests and are thus non-sentient beings. Considering such factors, Steinbeck concludes that a non-sentient being such as a fetus not deprived of anything by being killed and that abortion is thus not morally wrong.

    Bonnie Steinbock then discusses her criticisms against the potentiality principle. Through the potentiality principle, opponents of abortion argue that the potential of a fetus to become a sentient being with a unique set of interests and awareness of its future is enough to ascribe moral status to a fetus and to give it the same rights as any other person. One such flaw with this approach is that it does not follow from the fact that “something is a potential x that should be treated as an actual x.” Additionally, this argument also raises the question that if abortion is morally wrong, then the use of contraceptives such as spermicide is also unethical because it prevents a potential person from being born. Considering that few abortion opponents are willing to accept such a conclusion, Steinbock states that they are often forced to either give up or modify their overall argument.

    Bonnie Steinbock criticizes Don Marquis’s argument against abortion by highlighting his objections to the interest view. Marquis holds that his opinion is correct because it can explain why it is morally wrong to kill people who are temporarily unconscious. For example, Marquis asks if it is morally right to kill a non-sentient being, then how come it is wrong to kill a person in a comma considering that the individual is not conscious or sentient. If people appeal to the future conscious state of the individual in a comma, then the same argument can apply to a fetus, which will become conscious and sentient if we allow it to develop. Steinbock argues that two responses can be made to the objection to the interest view proposed by Marquis. The first is that there is a difference between a temporarily unconscious person and a fetus because the person who is unconscious had past experiences and an interest in its future. On the other hand, a fetus does not have past experiences and lacks a stake or awareness in its future. The second response is that people’s interests are not limited to what they take an interest in. According to Steinbock, if the non-conscious fetus is not interested in continuing to live, we could argue that continued existence it not in its best interest considering its personal desires.

    The ethical theory that is explored by Bonnie Steinbock is the idea of Kantian ethics. Kantian ethics argues that for a person to qualify for moral consideration, they must be able to use their reasoning skills to derive and understand moral issues. As such, the only people that would qualify for moral consideration under Kantian ethics would be individuals who were developed enough to have basic reasoning skills and a basic understanding of what is morally right or wrong. Steinbock’s position on the morality of abortion aligns with Kantian ethics because she argues that an unborn fetus lacks reasoning power and an awareness of what in fact is ethical. Considering her view that fetuses lack reasoning powers, Steinbock would argue that fetuses do not qualify for moral consideration and that it is not morally incorrect to destroy a fetus through an abortion.

    Overall, the argument put forward by Bonne Steinbock in “Most Abortions Are Morally Legitimate” includes several strengths and weaknesses. The main weakness of Steinbock’s argument is that it asserts that a fetus is not a sentient being and thus is not considered a moral agent. The main flaw with this argument is that scientists have yet to reach a full conclusion regarding whether a fetus can feel pain or is conscious of the world around them. If a fetus can, in fact, feel pain, then the argument posed by Steinbock that a fetus is not a living thing would, in turn, be invalid. The main strength of Steinbock’s argument is that she raises the question of the differences between sentient and non-sentient beings. The differences between sentient and non-sentient beings are often ignored by most contemporary philosophers, and many people tend to ignore the distinctions between both categories. By highlighting their differences, Steinbock is seeking to frame the debate regarding the morality of abortion in an entirely different light that is often ignored by recent studies on ethical issues.

  • Don Marquis “Abortion Is Immoral” Textual Analysis

    Don Marquis “Abortion Is Immoral” Textual Analysis

    In the 1989 essay “Abortion Is Immoral,” Don Marquis argues that abortion is morally wrong. Marquis feels that most contemporary philosophers ignore the issue of the morality of abortion because of their affiliation with secular higher education settings, which makes them believe that the anti-abortion viewpoint is “a conclusion generated by seriously confused philosophical argument.” In contrast to contemporary philosophers, Marquis argues that abortion is unethical and that it is in the same category as killing an innocent adult.

    To develop an argument on the unethical nature of abortion, Don Marquis states that we must ask the question of why it is morally wrong to kill someone. Marquis determines that what makes killing wrong is the effect that it has on the victim itself. Marquis argues that loss of one’s life “deprives one of all the experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments” that they will have in their life, and that would have defined their future. As such, killing an innocent person is wrong in Marquis’ opinion because it prevents a person from following through on the activities and experiences that would have defined their future life and helped to make them stand out as an individual. Te idea that the elimination of a person’s future is what makes killing wrong is illustrated by the fact that killing denies the victim of more than any other crime does.

    Don Marquis next asserts that the idea that the loss of a person’s future potential is what makes killing morally wrong gains further support when several its implications are examined. The first two implications are that his theory would support the belief that it would be wrong to kill beings that are members of other species and that the futures of some animals are like the prospects of people and that it is thus immoral to take their lives. The third implication discussed by Marquis is the claim that the loss of one’s future is the “wrong-making feature of one’s being killed does not entail that active euthanasia is wrong.” On the other hand, Marquis asserts that it is the value of a human’s future which makes killing wrong in this theory. The fourth implication is that the account of the wrongness of killing entails that it is immoral and unethical to kill children and infants because “we do presume that they have futures of value.”

    Don Marquis mentions that the potential future of a standard unborn child includes a series of experiences that are identical to an ordinary adult or young children. Considering that one can assert that it is immoral to kill a person after birth because it denies a person of their future potential, Marquis states that similar logic can be used to argue that abortion is morally wrong. The structure of Marquis’ anti-abortion argument is defended through a comparison with the case against inflicting pain on animals, which assumes that it is morally wrong to inflict pain on others. Both the argument against abortion and the argument against causing pain to animals begin with a premise regarding what it is wrong to do to another person and the consequences of a wrong action. Additionally, both recognize that the “wrong-making feature of such immoral actions is a property of actions sometimes directed at an individual other than postnatal human beings.” Marquis then argues that if the structure of the argument against the wrongness of inflicting pain on animals is correct, then the argument against abortion would be right as well.

    Don Marquis next mentions that abortion can be justified on certain grounds such as if the birth of a child would seriously threaten the life of the expectant mother. Even if abortion would be morally acceptable under a rare case, Marquis argues that they would only be admissible if they were to occur early in the pregnancy. Marquis also looks at the morality of contraception and its relation to the belief that killing denies an individual of their future potential. Even though contraception prevents the actualization of a possible future of value for a person that may potentially be conceived, Marquis argues that contraception is not immoral in practice. Marquis feels that contraception is not immoral because there is no identifiable subject of the loss of their future and value in the case of contraception.

    The ethical theory put forward by Don Marquis in “Abortion Is Immoral” is the idea of Utilitarian ethics. Utilitarian ethics stipulates that all pains and pleasures are morally significant and that the most morally right course of action to take is the one that limits suffering and maximizes pleasure for all people in society. Following such logic, Utilitarianism would argue that both sentient or non-sentient beings are subjects of moral consideration and that it is immoral to harm anyone. It can be reasoned that the argument by Marquis is related to Utilitarianism because he argues that abortion increases suffering because it prevents the opportunity for unborn children from realizing their full potential as they develop and mature. Additionally, Marquis also considers unborn children to be full subjects of moral consideration and feels that they are entitled to the same rights as all other people within society.

    The argument put forward by Don Marquis in “Abortion Is Immoral” includes several strengths and weaknesses. The main weakness regarding his argument is that it does not consider the belief that fetuses lack the awareness to take an interest in their future. Scientists often debate over whether fetuses have a conscious understanding of their future and the world surrounding them. If fetuses lack an understanding of their future and the world around them, then they do not take an active interest in their future. Assuming that fetuses lack an understanding or interest in their future, one can make the argument that it is not morally wrong to kill them through an abortion. On the other hand, the main strength of Marquis’ argument is that it considers the fact that killing an innocent person is morally wrong because of the effect that it has on themselves. By killing a person, you eliminate any hope that they may have for their future and attempt to dehumanize and devalue people by making them out as mere objects within society.