Why abortion wrong

People who don't believe abortion is always morally wrong use arguments like this:. Search term:. Read more. This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets CSS enabled. Web Surfer's Caveat: These are class notes, intended to comment on readings and amplify class discussion. They should be read as such.

They are not intended for publication or general distribution. Return to: Table of Contents for the Online Textbook. If X has a future like ours of great value and killing X deprives X of that future, then killing X is morally wrong. A fetus has a future like ours of great value and killing the fetus deprives the fetus of that future.

In their own way, both movements have made the same play: Pro-life and pro-choice activists have come to see scientific evidence as the ultimate tool in the battle over abortion rights. But in recent years, pro-life activists have been more successful in using that tool to shift the terms of the policy debate. Not everyone in the pro-life movement agrees with this strategic shift. Some believe new scientific findings might work against them. Others warn that overreliance on scientific evidence could erode the strong moral logic at the center of their cause.

The biggest threat of all, however, is not the potential damage to a particular movement. When scientific research becomes subordinate to political ends, facts are weaponized. Neither side trusts the information produced by their ideological enemies; reality becomes relative. Abortion has always stood apart from other topics of political debate in American culture. It has remained morally contested in a way that other social issues have not, at least in part because it asks Americans to answer unimaginably serious questions about the nature of human life.

But perhaps this ambiguity, this scrambling of traditional left-right politics, was always unsustainable. Yet physicians often support abortion, even late into fetal development. Malloy is one of many doctors and scientists who have gotten involved in the political debate over abortion.

She has testified before legislative bodies about fetal pain—the claim that fetuses can experience physical suffering, perhaps even prior to the point of viability outside the womb—and written letters to the U. Senate Judiciary Committee. Her career also shows the tight twine between the science and politics of abortion. In addition to her work at Northwestern, Malloy has produced work for the Charlotte Lozier Institute, a relatively new D. Anthony List, a prominent pro-life advocacy organization.

A child or adult who is killed loses the value of their future experiences and activities. But then this also applies to a fetus, whose future consists of the same types of experiences. A suicidal person might not value his or her future experiences, but yet the future can still have value for the person.

So Marquis thinks he has pinpointed why abortion is wrong. Not everyone agrees with his analysis. Columbia, MO Contact. All rights reserved. DMCA and other copyright information. For website information, contact the Office of Communications. Contact the MU School of Medicine. Informational Alert Close. Learn how to schedule an appointment for vaccination or testing. Read More. Education Research Patient Care.

Student Resources Faculty Resources. More Search. Can't find what you're looking for? Pages No Results. Center for Health Ethics. Section Menu. Introduction Abortion is one of the most controversial issues of modern times.

Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. Issues in the Abortion Dispute One way to see the abortion dispute is that opposing positions disagree because of differing perspectives on one or more key issues or factors: the moral status of the embryo or fetus the metaphysical and physical status of the embryo or fetus the moral rights of a person Moral status: The moral status of an entity is: Whether it deserves to be treated in a certain way.

Whether it can engage in right and wrong behavior. In summary, one way of looking at the relevance of the above issues to abortion is: The moral status of the embryo or fetus, unless overridden, might determine whether it was morally permissible to terminate the pregnancy. The moral status of the embryo or fetus might derive from or be supported by the metaphysical or physical status or nature of the fetus. There might be other morally-relevant factors or considerations that would outweigh or override the moral status of the embryo or fetus and change the ethical judgment about the permissibility of abortion.

Implicit Lines of Reasoning Behind the Positions Unfortunately, due to the tremendous acrimony each camp feels toward the other, usually neither side attempts to understand the other. The simplest line of reasoning behind the pro-life position is something like the following: The embryo or fetus is a person Persons have a right to life Therefore the embryo or fetus has a right to life It is wrong to kill a being with a right to life Therefore it is wrong to kill an embryo or fetus.

Many variations on the above are possible. Sometimes the claim is not that the embryo or fetus is a person but that it is a human being. Sometimes the belief is not that the embryo or fetus is a person but that it is a potential person. The assumption is that a potential person has actual rights, not just potential rights, and these include the right to life. Pro-lifers sometimes also believe that, except in cases of rape, the mother and father of the embryo or fetus should be held morally responsible for conceiving the child and bear the consequences of their actions.

Killing an innocent embryo or fetus is not a proper way to bear that responsibility. Some pro-lifers believe that in certain exceptional cases abortion is morally permissible.