Pontificia Universidad Católica Madre y Maestra

Argumentative Essay

Name:
Marlene Torres.
Enrollment:
2014-7122.
Class:
English 3
Professor:
Evelyn Lugo
Group:
SD- ILE-305- T- 009

Santo Domingo, D.N. Jul. 2018.

Why Abortion is Not Wrong
The morality of abortion is an issue that has been debated for years by philosophers
and lawyers alike. The morality of the issue has clear roadmaps pointing towards what is
permissible and what is not permissible. Many have contended that abortion is never
permissible because it is murder. On the other hand, many will contend that everyone has
rights to what happens to their person equally. It is my contention that abortion is morally
permissible because of the right to bodily autonomy.

Everyone has the right to dictate what happens to their body. Judith Tarver Thompson
contended that “bodily autonomy is the right of mother and fetus and one’s right to this
cannot outweigh the others” (Thomson). The law states that possession is nine tenths of the
law. So then a person, individually is in possession of their body, and therefore in possession
of the right to dictate what happens in said property (their body). We are all in possession of
rights that protect us from the best as well as the worst of us. These rights have been paid for
by rebellion, subversion, and bloodshed. With all that has been paid for these rights, no one
has the right to impede and/or violate someone else’s right whether voluntarily or
involuntarily. Abortion by definition is the “expulsion of the embryo from the uterus before
viability (20 weeks) or weight less than 500 grams” (H.P. Valman and J. F. Pearson). This
medical definition rings with an air of property rights with words such as “expulsion”. This
leads to the contention that I have made.

The main issue with abortion is the issue of who possess more rights; the mother or the fetus?
Each and every person has the right to bodily autonomy so the mother does have the right to
dictate what happens in and to her body. When this right is taken away then what is being
said is that one person’s rights outweigh the rights of someone else. The fetus is given
precedent over the mother and they are not viewed on equal footing. As Thompson stated in
her essay A Defense of Abortion, “the fetus never had the right to the usage of the mother’s
body therefore the fetus’ rights are not being violated” (Thomson).
 This simply shows that on the surface the mother appears to be subverting the fetus’
rights but it can be seen that this is not a violation of rights but simply an exercise in bodily
autonomy. Saying that this is a violation of the fetus’ rights would be analogous to granting
amnesty to a murderer because they admitted to a murder before exercising their right to
remain silent.

Abortion no matter how viewed is killing an innocent person. An ethical argument against
this killing is because killing another human being is not morally permissible. The argument
goes a step further as Don Marquis showed in his essay Why Abortion is Immoral when he
states, “a person experiences the greatest lose when they are killed because of the loss of their
future” (Marquis). Just because someone cannot place any value in regards to their life does
not mean that their life is worth any less. This valuation point is where the fetus cannot assert
itself. The fetus cannot speak therefore cannot say whether it wants to die or not. Yet they
still experience the greatest loss (their future) in spite of this silence.

The morality of abortion argument still does not take into account where the line is drawn for
the valuation debate. If the greatest loss is the loss of one’s future then what happens when
contraceptives are used? As Marquis so brilliantly illustrated millions of sperm cells are
stopped by condoms, spermicide and vaginal sponges, does the valuation argument then take
into account all of those future’s lost? When a position is taken for loss then where is the line
drawn.

Since the argument is predicated on future value, then when does the argument stop in the
case of contraception? This then turns into a circular argument. Value cannot be placed on the
embryo and not on the sperm and/or egg cell individually. These cells still possess the genetic
material for a future. So if it is wrong as a zygote cell then it to is wrong as a sperm or egg
cell. Abortion would be wrong and not morally permissible. This is the hole in the valuation
argument that places magnification on this crazy reasoning. The morality of abortion then is
an issue of bodily autonomy and nothing else.
Works Cited

H.P. Valman and J. F. Pearson. "What the Fetus Feels." British Medical Journal (26 January
1980 ): 233-234.

Marquis, Don. "Why Abortion Is Immoral." Shafer-Landau, Russ. The Ethical Life. New
York,NY: Oxford University Press, 2012. 364-373.

Thomson, Judith Jarvis. "A Defense of Abortion." Shafer-Landau, Russ. The Ethical Life.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2012. 351-363.