“Abortion is impermissible, because it deprives a being of a future like ours. Accordingly, it is morally similar to killing a healthy adult.” Critically discuss this argument, drawing upon at least one of the authors we have looked at in the readings.
Abortion in general can be defined as terminating a pregnancy before birth and this still remains a controversial topic in the world today of whether it is immoral or moral to do so. Besides certain exceptions, the view of abortion as a seriously immoral action has minimal support or evidence in present-day philosophical literature (Marquis, 1989). However, views exist when it comes to illuminating the permissibility of abortion, particularly when future prospects of the foetus are taken into account. This is what the future like ours argument also points out that killing an adult human being is wrong because it deprives the adult of a future and the foetus has a future as well, killing foetuses is wrong in the same way that killing adult human beings is wrong (Kuflik, 2008:417). The future like ours argument is parallel to controversial religious claims and does not appeal to perplexing or difficult philosophical theories (Kuflik, 2008:418). In this essay an attempt will be made to critically discuss abortion being impermissible as it is similar to killing a healthy adult.
People against abortion normally depend on the idea that the foetus is a human being or a person from the moment of conception, this notion is argued for but not so well (Thompson, 1971 :266). The growth of a human being from conception to childhood is being seen as continuous and we are being asked to decide as to which stage in this growth or development the foetus is a person and there is no definite point this can be attested to. When do we become autonomous, when do we become self-conscious are also some questions which arise. By the tenth week of pregnancy, for instance, the foetus has a face, it has internal organs, and there is brain activity (Thompson, 1971 :266). For the sake of this essay the assumption of a foetus being a person or a human being shall be maintained through the discussion.
The future like ours argument states that a foetus in its future has the potential to have similar experiences, projects, and activities of an adult or young child has (Marquis, 1989:197). Most abortions are seriously prima facie immoral according to Marquis (Marquis, 1980:185) this is due to the fact that these abortions rob the foetus of the precious future it would have had, if the abortion had not been enacted. The argument boils down to the fact that if an innocent healthy adult were to be killed for someone else benefit (financial gain for example) it would have deprived the adult of a future they could have enjoyed hence this creates a strong stand point that the killing is gravely wrong. The future like ours argument has 2 premises which are: Premise 1: Having a future of value is the basis for the right to not be killed (Brown, 2002:192).
Premise 2: Foetuses have a future of value (Brown, 2002:192).
Conclusion: Foetuses have the right to not be killed (Brown, 2002:192).
Let us look at a mother’s right to self defence for instance and we still maintain the view that it is impermissible to kill the foetus even to save the mother’s life. As stated earlier that the foetus is considered a person, does that mean that the mother’s interests and the foetus’ are the same and the sanctity of life principle supports this as everyone has the right to life. Perhaps the doctors should simply decide who must live in a coin toss? Must the decision to be made add the mother’s right to choose what happens to her body which would make the sum of her rights outweigh the foetus’ right to life (Thompson, 1971 :268). Scholars normally state that although there is a responsibility or compulsion to guard the welfare of potential persons, every time there is a grim clash of interests between an actual and potential person, the decision must be prefer the actual person to the potential (Handfield, 2012). This example directly poses a strong stance against the initial question of abortion being impermissible as it is similar to killing an adult as it shows preference.
Sinnott-Armstrong (1997) states that, not always is it morally wrong to have a person lose his future like ours. Let us suppose that James is very ill from a sickness which has rendered him bed ridden and has been given a week to live. On the other hand there is Betty who has the only dose which can postpone the disease’s deadly effects for three months and its hers by right, her condition is not as severe as James. If James were to ask for the dose, would it be morally wrong for Betty to refuse? Sinnott-Armstrong’s perspective focuses on the fact that even if the deficiency of a future like ours is the motivation why killing a healthy adult is wrong, is not an enough stipulation. Hence stating that abortion deprives the foetus of the potential future like ours is not a sufficient to say that abortion is morally wrong. Where do we place people who do not want children or incapable of caring of children but do not have the chance to abort and rape victims as well. We also have to consider the future of the foetus as well after birth and not just the right to life.
In conclusion killing a foetus can be regarded as morally wrong because we were all once foetuses and we can not deprive them of the future. Marquis claims that “abortion, like regular killing may be defensible only by the most convincing reasons…, only if the loss resulting in failing to abort would result in a worse of situation like the example of the mother in self defense”. The fact that there is no definite stage in the development of a foetus where we can pin point that this is a person or a normal person now brings about too much controversy making the comparison difficult. Potential people do have value, and have the potential to become a person and should be considered morally noteworthy. Foetuses do not, as Singer points out, have the same rights equal to actual people. Abortion in other words can not be morally at par with the killing of a healthy adult.