Abortion Viewed from a Philosophical Approach

In this paper I will share light to the points of view of various philosophers on the topic at hand which is abortion. I will also share my position as an antiabortionist to a certain extent. Only when something life threatening to the mother occurs or there has been incest or rape forced upon the mother to be than it is justifiable to end a potential persons life. Note that it is my position that a fetus is a human being and is a potential person that will grow and develop into an actual person. It is also my position to say by this conclusion that a fetus has rights as us people do. Therefore it is morally wrong for a person to end a potential person's life without proper justification as the ones mentioned above. I believe that a "normal" fetus has equal rights as does a fetus that will not grow to be sane or will be in latter life mentally disabled. Every person is placed in this world for a reason. We were all potential persons at one time and we are not to take the life of a potential person since they did not ask to be brought into this world.

When it comes upon determining if the insane and mentally disabled have the same right I believe that the insane and mentally disabled have the same rights as normal people to a certain extent. The insane and the mentally disabled can not fence for themselves but they have the right to be in this world as normal people do. The only difference is that the insane person's brain might be mentally disturbed and the mentally disabled brain doesn't have the same capacity as a normal brain. This is why both groups of people would need someone to take care of them and lead them towards the right path. They have certain limitations to determine how they can exercise their rights as human beings. It is not the insane persons fault and its not the mentally disables' fault that there brain functions are limited. They have the right to live in this world as any normal person does. Everyone is different and everyone has its own purpose in life.

One might wonder if a fetus that will grow with a disability as to be insane or to be mentally disabled would have the right to live. I do believe they do. One also might ask why should a fetus with a brain dysfunction live among us "normal" humans when they would find it hard to live and wouldn't be doing much in this world? I disagree I believe that every human is placed in this life for a purpose one doesn't know if that fetus will grow to be someone with great expectations in this life. Most people that are classified as insane or mentally disturbed are actually smart in a difference sense. Perhaps that fetus was put in this world to teach someone a valuable lesson. There are numerous reasons as to why anyone is placed in this world and it would definitely be prejudice if one is to get rid of someone just because they lack something a normal person has. It would be the same as getting rid of an elderly person because they lack understanding.

It's morally wrong and its unjust the mentally disabled and the insane have rights as human beings to live in this world among us "normal" people.

The principle seeking to explain under what circumstances one may act in a way that has both good and bad consequences is known as the principle of double effect. It states that an action having an unintended, harmful effect (e.g., an early death) is defensible on four conditions as follows: according to this principle the nature of the act has to be good for example one is relieving someone of pain or distress. The intention is for the good effect and not the bad; the good effect outweighs the bad effect in a situation sufficiently grave to merit the risk of yielding the bad effect (e.g., risking a patient's death to stop intolerable pain); and the good effect (relieving pain) does not go through the bad effect (e.g., death) according to the double effect principle if a mothers life is at steak it is permissible to abort the fetus since one has good intentions to save the mothers life. The abortion is done for a good act because one is primarily taking into consideration the mother's health.

When it comes to the doctrine of "natural law" It is not agreeable to say that the doctrine is consistent to that of the double effect principle. The double effect principle justifies saving a life being a good act although bad circumstances take place hence, saving a life by ending a life. The doctrine of natural law on the other hands' first rule is "evil may not be done that good come of it." Although one might think they are doing a good act by saving a life and ending another. According to natural law this may not be done. Meaning no good is really taking place, if you are doing evil to another. Since natural law follows the laws of nature it is believed that everything is happening for a reason or that god has placed the given drastic situation and one is not capable of ending someone's life as a means to save another because it is not our given right as humans' to take these measures. Ending the life of a fetus for whatever cause would be considered murder according to natural law. Therefore it is not consistent with that of the double effect theory.

I agree with the double effect theory it is morally legitimate, objectively grounded basis for clarifying the important moral distinctions which need to be made within these very tragic and difficult moral dilemmas. The mother is also an innocent human being. When it comes to natural law it leans more towards the ethical side and points out that any kind of abortion is murder. I disagree since one has to take into consideration the moral issues that have arisen. Natural law says that they cannot take "the task of the law to choose between points of view or to impose one rather than another. But the life of the child takes precedence over all opinions. One cannot invoke freedom of thought to destroy this life.

Moral factors have to be taken into account before determining such drastic measure. It is understood that they are looking at the grave situation objectively. When it comes down to reality one has to make a choice. The mother can always procreate or if instead of the mother's health being at risk it is rape that occurred one can not just feel obligated to keep the child because it is ethically wrong to stop the growing fetus from developing; since the child will only grow to feel unwanted and the mother will be miserable. Or in the case of the mothers life being at steak as long as the death of her unborn child is not directly intended as the end (or purpose) of using these procedures, or is the means by which her life is saved, but only allowed or permitted to happen as an accidental by-product of these medical actions, and no other reasonable medical treatment is available. That is the only reason abortion may not be considered murder is my position.

Two Principles that Philip Devine maintains in his approach to the wrongs of abortion are the species principle and the potentiality principle. When considering the species principle Devine asserts that the infant is "a member of the human species. The infant in due time will speak, think, love, and have a sense of justice" which denotes the potentiality principle and if one considers these facts mentioned above then one is to assume that "a zygote is alive, it grows and presumably is an instance of the species homo sapiens" and if nothing goes wrong it will develop enough to be considered a person. This is due to the fact that fetuses, embryos and zygotes potentially pose human person traits. Devine in these two principles takes into account the humanity and personhood of a zygote, fetus and embryo. He makes the assumption that infants are protected by the moral rule against homicide and therefore concludes that abortion is murder. Furthermore, he discusses that murder is ruled out if the reason for the abortions is justified or mitigated. Meaning that there has to be plausible reasons as to why such severe and drastic measures are taken to have abortions such reasons include therapeutic abortions. For example when the mother's life is at stake seems like a justifiable or persuasive reason as to why terminate a life.

In agreement with both of his principles it is rightfully assumed that a zygote or any form of human life is a member of the human species and will potentially be a person as Devine points out many "philosophers believe that there are many stages of humanity" this is true it is hard to say when full fletched humanity is ascertained. Therefore, if certainty is not exact then one is certain that eventually the zygote will be fully human but until that time one is slowly thinking of names and having feelings for the growing zygote inside the womb of the mother. One might ponder on if there is a difference when the infant is outside the mother's womb and when the infant was inside. In regards to the potentiality principle there are different stages in life. A zygote slowly develops into an infant and into a child. A teenager slowly develops into and adult, an adult slowly develops into an elder. Hence, there is no difference in assuming that a zygote will potentially become an infant. There is a strong developmental diversity to be considered. Thus, from Philip divines' conclusion it is assumed that abortion is murder if and when there are not underlying causes for the abortion; such as the mothers life being at stake or when incest or rape occurred. In agreement with this conclusion these reasons justify to the fullest extent in ending a potentially humans life. The main objective is to save the mothers life before the child. The mother can always have another one. When considering an abortion when rape takes place it shouldn't be considered murder since the conception took place upon force. There was no will in the conception. Abortion is murder unless underlying factors come into play therefore one can rule therapeutic abortions to be considered if and when there is a sole compelling cause as to why have the abortion.

Mary Anne warren rejects the claim that the mother's body is her property and that therefore she may expel any intruder from it under the grounds that it's inappropriate to discuss a woman's body as a property. She gives the example that if one hurts there leg or any body part one does not say "I damaged my property" but merely that one has hurt ones self. The principle given by Mary Anne warren to justify abortion is the claim that a fetus is not a person. I highly disagree with Warren in relevance to the fetus not being a person. A fetus is a potential person it will grow and develop to be such therefore; the fetus has rights as if it were a person. It is morally wrong to say that one will end an elderly person's life because he or she may be diminishing slowly as a person. Than it's the same when it comes to a fetus this mother was once a potential person, who is she to end a potential persons' life? The fetus did not ask to be brought into this world.

Mary Anne Warren's reasoning as to why she rejects the pro-life identification of the concept of a human being with the concept of a person is that although it may be considered for the fetus to human's rights she does not think it should have rights as actual persons do. According to warren a fetus is human but not a person. She states that a fetus is not part of the "moral community" which would give them an equal moral right. She also mentions that "the moral community" meaning people decide if a fetus can become part of the moral community she believes that men and women have the right to love, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Hence the moral community consists of only people rather than only human beings. Warren also believes that since a fetus has no resemblance to a person than it shall have no rights. Furthermore, although the fetus may be a potential person it is no basis for the fetus to have a right to life. The mother being an actual person overrides the rights of a potential person. She continues to state that a woman that wants to have an abortion and is not permitted than that would constitute as taking her moral and constitutional rights away.

The reason given by Paul Wilkes that rejects modern embryology having a human soul present as soon as conception has occurred is that conception doesn't occur instantaneous it happens in a couple of days. Fertilization takes twenty four hours to occur. Twins are formed in fourteen days. This is why it's hard to determine if there is a human soul present upon conception and that is why Wilkes denies the claim. In my opinion the soul is a force that is here to carry out a mission using the human body as a vessel. A soul already exists upon entering the body it becomes a human soul and finally a living soul. I agree with Paul Wilkes No the soul cannot be subdivided. Yes an embryo can be subdivided but in the case of twins each twin has its own unique identity.

In conclusion there are endless approaches towards abortion. When it comes down to it one has to think of it in a moral perspective and understand that one was a potential person once and one did not ask to be brought into this world. As Philip Devine states a fetus will eventually talk, think, and a have a sense of justice. One has to have a persuasive reason to end the life of a growing fetus. I also agree with Paul Wilkes when he mentions that he's pro life but he is also pro person and one has to take into account every persons story. It should only be upon extreme measures that such a drastic decision to end a life should arise. One has to take into consideration all the options available. As in the case of rape and incest one might try to consider adoption as the best choice but if the mother can not live through the agony and it will only bring the innocent child pain then one can consider ending a fetus's life. In the case of saving a life by ending a life is justifiable when the mother's life is at risk. Finally, I disagree with Mary Anne Warren's conclusion when she states that if society can not take care of an "unwanted" or "defective" infant than one should get rid of it. This statement can be so easily taken as if one makes a mistake of not using protection or choosing to be abstinent than one does not have to face to the responsibilities set forth. One can easily disregard there obligations towards the child. If the mother intentionally got pregnant or committed the mistake to get pregnant she is obligated to see for the child whom did not ask to be brought into this world. Therefore, everything happens for a reason everyone has the right to be in this world.

Father David C. Trosch, Principle of Double effect http://www.trosch.org/phi/dbl-efft.htm, 2003. Retrieved 2007-11-23.

Philip Devine, The Wrongs of Abortion 239.

Devine 239.

Devine 243.