Questions for the 1st Writing Assignment

Salinas · Posts: 6 Join date: 2008-11-25

To determine whether inferences made on the issue of abortion is valid or not, it is important to note that a deductive argument is valid when its premises, if true, do provide conclusive grounds for the truth of its conclusion.

One of the inferences made is the assertion of the conservatives that killing a fetus is always wrong. The basis of such deduction is from the premises that killing is wrong, a general knowledge, and that a fetus is an innocent person. The inference is valid since it satisfies the consideration of a valid deductive argument that the premises are true, thus the conclusion follows to be true. The truth value of the premises and conclusion was assumed, adopting the belief of anti-abortionists on such claims; because pro-abortionists might say that the arguments are false making the deductions of anti-abortionists invalid. This way of analysis will also be used on the part of pro-abortionists.

On the part of the pro-abortionists, they have asserted that abortion is justifiable in many cases. First, a fetus is not a person since according to Michael Tooley, the significant characteristics of a person are acquired some time after birth and second, when the fetus poses serious threats on the part of the mother. The self defense model strengthens the claim as abortion is permissible if it is required to save the life of the mother. The deduction is sound as the truth values of the following premises are true and thus its conclusion is true, following the assumptions of pro-abortionists.

Nevertheless, some assertion may be valid or justified not until contradictions within such assertion arise. For instance, the pro-choicer will argue that fetuses are not persons nor rational agents nor social beings, thus abortion is not a wrongful killing. Pro-choicer defined a person as a psychological being capable for having duties and behaves morally. Feinberg, a pro-choicer, also suggested that having rights, which entails consciousness or rationality makes a being a person. To illustrate;

psychological being-->duties-->behaves morally-->PERSON<--conscious<--have rights

However, on the decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court (case of Karen Ann Quinlan), tells that even severely retarded and temporarily unconscious being have rights. If such is the case, then it makes a place for the fetuses too, that though unconscious, still, they have rights making them a person. This notion then contradicts the main assertion of the pro-choice.

On the other hand, inconsistencies were also seen within the claims of anti-abortionists on the theory of sanctity of life. They claimed that it is prima facie seriously wrong to kill any human being because of the loss of his or her future or what they called “a future-like-ours” argument. What makes this argument more plausible are the two rival accounts—the desire and the discontinuation accounts—that will later on contradict the anti-abortionists' claim. Desire account suggests that “what makes killing wrong is that it interferes with the fulfillment of a strong and fundamental desire...an individual might have.” Then this account moves from the claim that what makes killing wrong is the interference with a very strong desire to the claim that abortion is not wrong because the fetus lacks a strong desire to live.

Meanwhile, from the premise that people value the experience of living and wish for that valuable experience to continue, it might be said that what makes killing wrong is the discontinuation of that experience for an individual, thus termed, the discontinuation account. However, if it is the continuation of one's activities, experiences, and projects, the loss of which makes killing wrong, then in contrary to the main assertion of the anti-abortionists, it is not wrong to kill fetuses for that reason; because fetuses do not have significant experiences, activities, and projects to be continued or discontinued.●●●

Camunay · Posts: 6 Join date: 2008-11-25 Age: 19

Abortion has been widely discussed not only by legal and constitutional disputes, but more precisely by moral debates. Philosophers have put their emphasis on the status of the fetus that after it has been established, moral judgments would come into place. The different moral and normative meanings of the term person have been given an importance. Not only the fetus must be given such importance but also the pregnant woman who suffers more from a lot of discrimination and oppression.

Jane English, who was a professor at the University of Carolina, in her essay: “Abortion and the Concept of a Person”, argued that the problem on the issue of abortion could not be fixed by only studying the “personhood status of the fetus” because the concept of a person is not particular enough for us to be able to draw a line on the permissibility of abortion. She also has other assumptions and arguments regarding the concept of personhood. Don Marquis, on “Why Abortion is Immoral”, believed that fetuses have the same moral status or moral standing as do adult persons, and the finding that there is a strong presumption that any abortion is morally impermissible is supported by the same reason that makes an adult immoral. His proponents included Joel Feinberg, Michael Tooley, Mary Anne Warren, Tristan Engelhardt Jr., L.W. Summer, John Noonan Jr., and Philip Divine. Susan Sherwin’s “Feminist Analyses of Women and Abortion” gave relative interest in analyzing the interests and experiences of women when it comes to the issue of abortion.

Pro-life advocates are examples of those conservatives who believe that the human life begins at conception. By that, performing abortion would let you be branded as someone who is immoral. They also support their claims by explaining how well the fetuses look like the babies and also their possession of a genetic code which is necessary for all human beings. Killing the life inside a woman’s womb is incontestably illustrating immorality.

Pro-abortion advocates are those liberals who firmly believe that human life begins at birth. For them, killing someone who is not yet considered a human being is just a simple act without taking into consideration other relevantly negative externalities of agreeing in killing it. Some philosophical thinkers consider factors such as the biological, psychological, legal, rationality and social factors in order to accept a fetus as a human being.

Pro-choice is neither purely opposing to abortion nor purely supporting the conservative thought. Pro-choice wanted to find a moral principle concerning the wrongness of killing at the same time considering the assumption that fetuses have the same moral status or moral standing as do adult persons possess. Women, especially in feminist ethics, were given more importance and privilege to have an option on whether they will kill or keep their fetuses. They should be known as having full control over their own reproductive lives. Oppression on women, economic deprivation and other concerns were maybe few of the reasons why women can ever consider killing the fetus during her pregnancy.

The arguments formed and the conclusions reached were sufficiently able to support each other’s claims and premises. It will only be more realistic, acceptable and practical if concrete examples were given. Examples given within each point and issue would make the distinction among the three positions on abortion more dependable and sensible and it will be better if such examples were up-to-date and relevant to a particular condition of abortion.

de Guzman · Posts: 5 Join date: 2008-11-25

The issue of abortion, though not that new, is still of great debate. Three positions are then presented: pro-choice, pro-life, and pro-abortion. I would like to present first the assumptions before giving my insights and discussing their acceptability. The different assumptions that have been presented are as follows:

Pro-abortion
In Jane English’s article entitled “Abortion and the Concept of a Person”, she cited Mary Anne Warren who listed five features as her criteria for personhood and argues for the permissibility of abortion because a fetus falls outside this concept. According to Liberals, since a fetus does not become a person until its birth, a woman may do whatever she pleases in and to her own body. English also stated in her article that abortion is justifiable early in pregnancy to avoid modest harms and seldom justifiable late in pregnancy except to avoid significant injury or death.

Pro-life
On the other hand, conservatives maintain that human life begins at conception and that therefore abortion must be wrong because it is murder. This assumption is further discussed by Don Marquis in his article “Why Abortion is Immoral.” Moreover, they also hold that abstinence is the only acceptable way to avoid pregnancy. Pro-life advocates point out to the similarities between a fetus and a baby and evoke our emotional attachment to and sympathy for the fetus. They view women who carry these fetal individuals as passive hosts whose only significant role is to refrain from aborting or harming their fetuses. Some physicians have even joined anti-abortion campaigners in fostering a cultural acceptance of the view that fetuses are distinct individuals who are physically, ontologically, and socially separate from the women whose bodies they inhabit and that they have their own distinct interests.

Pro-choice
In the feminists’ point of view, the pregnant woman is the subject of principal concern in abortion decisions. They believe that women have abortions for a wide variety of compelling reasons; that the women concerned are in best position to judge whether abortion is the appropriate response to a pregnancy. They also state that women cannot rely on birth control to avoid pregnancy.

Given these assumptions, I agree with Jane English and with everyone else here that we cannot settle the issue of abortion with our concept of personhood. These assumptions are not without flaws – and this issue as I have said cannot be easily settled. I for one agree with the feminists’ view that abortion depends on women’s decisions. Susan Sherwin in “Feminist Analyses of Women and Abortion” presented reasonable statements on why women’s decisions should be respected in cases of abortion. In sum, these assumptions given by various academics are well supported by their examples; thus, whatever stand we make, we should somehow look for equal rights between the pregnant women and the fetus.

Mercado · Posts: 6 Join date: 2008-11-25

Central to the moral issue on abortion are the pro-life and pro-choice arguments. The abortion debate includes a pile of loaded buzzword. Pro-abortion currently are used synonymously with pro-choice, leading several people believe that they are two different labels for the same thing. However, the construct is an attempt to frame the issue to demonize the right of women to terminate the pregnancy. The aim is intended to portray pro-choice activists in a more negative connotation.

The pro-life advocates claim and assert that human life begins during the conception. Persons are created in the image and likeness of God is the essence of humanness. Therefore, the unborn child is also created in the image of God and therefore fully human in God’s sight. The fetus is considered as a separate person and henceforth subject to the same rights of a mature human being. To the conservatives, since life begins at conception, abortion is akin to murder of an innocent and defenseless human being. It is an unforgivable moral sin. For them, “What right do humans have to curtail the life of something that Divine Providence has created?” Children are seen as gifts from God. Literally and figuratively, abortion deprived life opportunities and experiences from the unborn child; thus, an act of violence. The act goes against the norm of the society and the belief of the sanctity of life.

Principles behind the pro-life argument are clearly dogmatically grounded on faith. Pro-life advocates failed to consider the difference of the concept of personhood from human life. There is no clear-cut delineation provided wherein the personhood starts. Actually, the unborn child do not fully resembles a human being during the early stages of the prenatal development. The fundamental right to life is of utmost importance above everything else. However, the pro-life argument glosses over the fact of life without consideration of the quality of life. What kind of life will the unborn child lead? It is satisfactory enough. What does satisfactory means? Will he be able to eat three times a day? Or will he suffer from hunger and poverty like millions of people around the globe?

Pro-Choice argument was able to integrate these elements into one. This is the stand of the feminist movement throughout the globe. Pro-Choice is about bodily integrity and autonomy giving woman the right and the freedom to decide on what’s best for their body given conditions. With the pro-choice view, the focus in upon the woman and not the unborn child in her womb; thus, giving importance on their roles as a productive labor force. Thus, in the end, the woman will be able to realize her full potential as an economic and political actor.

Personhood starts at birth. All abortions are done during in the first trimester of the prenatal development wherein the fetus cannot exist independently from the mother’s body. Therefore, it can be considered part of the mother’s body and not an individual entity. Its whole being, its health and status are dependent upon the mother’s health through the connection in the umbilical cord and the placenta. The limitations of the pregnancy and the expectations of the society are directed on the mother.

A pregnancy to a woman is perhaps the most determinative aspects of her life. It disrupts her body. It disrupts her education. It disrupts her employment. And it often disrupts her entire family life. In this decision, the US Supreme Court in the landmark case of Roe v Wade clearly supported woman’s right to abortion under certain conditions, giving a choice to the ‘unwilling to bear the unwanted’. In pregnancy, there are two living humans involved: the unborn child and the mother. The ideal is to save them both. However, abortion may be necessary to avoid serious danger to the mother’s physical and mental health. The ability of the woman to control her body is critical to her civil rights and liberties. In the end, the decision represents the woman’s freedom and right of choices.

The pro-choice argument unlike the pro-life was able to embed the abortion debate in a dynamic political and economic society. The problem is not only constricted in the individual level, the so-called micro level but also transcends into the macro-level concerning the institutional arrangements in the society. Everything, directly and indirectly, translates into the responsibility of the government in administering, regulating and allocating resources toward a society that is equal, just and free.

marcelo.hinang · Posts: 3 Join date: 2008-11-24

Since the legalization of abortion in 1973, there have been constant campaigns that threaten women decisions governing their bodies and they have been partially successful.
Meanwhile, some stands projected on the issue of abortion are that in the context of conservative’s way of looking at abortion and that on the liberal side of assessing it. For the conservatives, they firmly believe that pregnancy termination of a fetus which is said to be as a person is a crime, it is a form of murder. The basis of the conclusion resides with the notion that human life starts at conception, thus, if fetus is a person, some abortions are permissible in self-defense against innocent threats to mother's well-being, life prospects, or mental or physical health. While the liberals must say that the decision to abort is a matter of personal choice, but it is not an easily or casually made decision. The claim provides the notion that life begins simply at birth. Yet, it seems that if fetus is not a person, coherence of our moral sentiments and attitudes would require that we give moral consideration to person-like beings. In the latest stages of pregnancy, abortion is psychologically similar to murder. Ergo, the stand of pro-choice seems invalid.
On the other side, like the other authors, Marquis does not rest his argument on the claim that the fetus is a person. The main claim of his work was that what makes the killing of an adult human being wrong is the loss of his or her future. Here a fetus has a future as valuable as the future of an adult human being. Ergo, killing a fetus is as wrong as killing an adult human being.
Abortion is not considered an everyday kind of occurrence for most women; it may be an unpleasant and frequently painful experience. Few women view an abortion as anything but a difficult and necessary alternative to an unintended pregnancy. It is not a method of contraception. Ergo, the issue is not that abortion may take place of sensible contraception but that it is a backup method to contraceptive failure that provides a way out of an untenable situation.

nombrado · Posts: 3 Join date: 2008-11-24

Along with the issue of abortion come numerous assertions and claims from a variety of people like statesmen, philosophers and feminists. Their roles in society play an important aspect in determining what becomes of the people in a country. And with their stands regarding abortion, they share their ideas to the people how personhood affects the issue of abortion, whether personhood begins at conception or at birth, and whether personhood is valid as basis for determining the permissibility of abortion in the first place. They would also tell us when it is that the fetus possesses a certain value, and how much that value is. But are these claims valid?

The article by Jane English asserts the obscurity of using personhood as basis to consider the permissibility of abortion. This is due to the groups of people proposing various criteria to determine what is typical of a person. With these criteria, anti-abortionists propose criteria which would satisfy the personhood of fetuses, while pro-abortionists use criteria which fetuses lack. Jane English asserts that a person is basically a cluster of features, of which a single criterion, of Tooley for example, is only a part. There has not been a list of criteria proposed which precisely describes what a person is. For these reasons, it is justifiable that personhood is in fact inadequate in concluding the abortion issue.

To further strengthen her first assertion, Jane English tests whether personhood has its value in determining the permissibility of abortion. She argues that supposing a fetus is an innocent person, it is therefore always wrong to kill a fetus. But is it always wrong to kill an innocent person? She argues that this is actually permissible and is much clearly exemplified through self-defense. If you are being attacked by a person, regardless of his innocence, you are given the right kill the attacker and save yourself from threat. It does not always follow that when a person attacks you, killing him/her is the only option. Injury to the attacker depends on the injury to be avoided and should not be enormously greater than the injury to be avoided.

The case is the same for pregnant women. If a fetus poses a threat which endangers the life of the mother, then she may kill the fetus even if it is innocent. But if the fetus only threatens the interests of the mother, career for example, then that does not justify abortion.

Supposing that a fetus is not a person, abortion would not always be morally permissible. Animals get some rights in the community and enjoy these considerations. Torture of animals is prohibited; some even think it’s wrong to make use of animals in laboratory experiments, especially when pain and suffering are involved considering results in these experiments may prove valuable to us humans. Even if a fetus is not human, abortion is still not justifiable. Abortion would only be justifiable when continuation of the pregnancy poses threats to the health of the mother.

According to Jane English, what plays an important factor in determining whether abortion is justifiable regardless if the fetus is considered a person or not, are the psychological facts –people perceive physical similarities of a fetus to a baby. With this, she argues that abortion cannot be identified as murder during the first few stages of conception wherein the fetus still lacks characteristics of a human being, but she also added that this changes in the latter stages of conception during the development of the head and the limbs. Therefore, Jane English considers abortion justifiable only during the beginning stage of conception or when pregnancy poses severe threats to the health of the mother.

The assertion of Jane English, particularly the justifiability of abortion during the first stages of conception can be invalidated by Don Marquis’s account on the future-like-ours. The assertion made by Don Marquis highlights the value of the future of nonhumans with the claim that nonhumans also have their own future and that it is wrong to kill them. Simply put, the fetus, supposing its nonhuman, during its first stages of development has its future. Unless the future of that fetus does not threaten the future of the mother, particularly health, it would be wrong to kill the fetus. If we would establish that the fetus is a person, then the more value we put in its future. Don Marquis said that it is prima facie seriously wrong to kill the young.

Feminist accounts are obviously concerned with the importance of protecting women’s rights to continue or to stop pregnancy as each sees fit over the morality of performing abortion or the welfare, future of the fetus. They insist more on the accessibility and the delivery of abortion services. They consider the fetus as a nonperson, and is only of value when the mother wants to conceive it. They always talk about their freedoms, but they aren’t concerned of the fetus’s right to live, rather they amuse themselves with their views of having the power to award fetuses value, as vendors put prices on their goods. They are asserting that abortion to them involves considerations to the needs and interests of everyone, including them, and the fetus they carry, when in fact, they are more concerned of women’s rights and freedoms valuing more education and work over their responsibilities as mothers and wives. Their assertions are not only invalid and contradicting, but they also undermine their roles as mothers and as partners. Women are integral in the make up of a family, and it is through proper functioning in their roles as mothers and wives and as professionals with the help of their partners can there be hope for the children to experience proper upbringing.

ak_marin · Posts: 2 Join date: 2008-11-25

Much of the debates about Abortion, especially the earlier ones, are often dominated by extremists – the Pro-Life believers, who are against it; and the Pro-choice ones, who are in favor of it. In discussing the issues of Abortion, it is almost inevitable to come across the argument of whether or not fetuses are persons. Establishing the personhood of the fetus could help confirm the moral and legal rights it might be given of, or denied from.

The pro-choice supporters claim that a fetus does not become a person until birth; and since the fetus is within the woman’s body, making it part of her own, she has the full control over it, just like what she have over her own body. The pro-life advocates, on the contrary, argue that life begins at conception, pointing out that abortion then is murder.

A common critique to both sides would be that they only focus on the conditions which they can satisfy, and seem to neglect the other criteria which they can not attain. The actual development of humans is, after all, gradual. No clear boundary between levels of development is available, hence, it would also be unattainable to find a definite time when a fetus can be considered a person at all.

Another fallacy which occurs on the debate, as stated in the text, is identified as the ‘fallacy of affirming the consequent’. It can take the form of:
P1) If x is a person, then x has human DNA.
P2) The fetus has human DNA.
C) Therefore, the fetus is a person.
Even if the premises are true, the conclusion that can be drawn from this type of argument are not well-supported by the argument itself, and therefore may be termed to as ‘unreliable’, or even invalid. Consequently, the claims that a fetus is a person because it has human DNA, or because its mother is a human, are fallacious.

The use of self-defense model in viewing the subject of Abortion is also emphasized on the essays. It presents 4 perspectives: (1) the only acceptable way to avoid pregnancy is through abstinence, (2) contraception is all right, but abortion is always wrong, (3) you may only kill the attacker, if he/she intends to kill you, not if he/she will only injure you, and finally, (4) it is all right to kill the attacker, even if he/she would cause only a slight inconvenience. The fourth view seem to in total difference compared with the rest, in that, it justifies the killing although the potential harm avoided is less drastic than the act of self-defense.

There is a common consensus that killing is morally wrong. But then again, this view can sometime be bent, depending on the nature of the act. If it is just for fun, killing is totally wrong, but if the act can benefit the majority of the population, then it can be permissible, as in the case of non-humans (e.g. killing of pests to ensure healthy crops, chickens for food, etc.). However, if the subject would be non-humans, although the result would be beneficial, experimenting on them or killing them would still be viewed as morally wrong.

This is the reason why we are trying to establish the personhood of the fetus. There are still differences on how the public view the act of killing. If the subject is a non-person, the complications are less; but if it is a person, killing would only be permissible if it is done in self-defense. But what if, for instance, fetuses are non-persons? Who are we to decide what we may or may not do to non-persons?

israel barrios · Posts: 6 Join date: 2008-11-26

Jan Israel N. Barrios
2006-30125
Philo 171- TF 10:00-11:30am
Prof. Jimenez

Abortion

In Jane English’s article, the different positions made on the issue of abortion were the following: Those who are against abortion argue that life begins at conception and abortion is wrong because it murder while pro-abortion people argue that a fetus is not a person until it is born so it cannot be considered as murder. With such assumptions, it seemed like the easiest way to find out if abortion is right or wrong is to define the concept of a “person”. That is, if a fetus qualifies as a person, then abortion is murder and is therefore wrong. But if it does not, then abortion would be justified. However, defining the concept of a “person” is not really as easy as it seems. There is no clear cut definition of what a person is and so, using this definition to justify or condemn abortion would seem inappropriate. Like what Jane English had said in her article, the concept of a “person” itself is so broad that anti-abortion people would simply pick out from the definition those conditions that would satisfy a fetus’s personhood while pro-abortion peeps would do just the contrary- selecting the conditions of a person that the fetus lacks. Choosing only those conditions that favor their positions only makes it more difficult to determine if abortion is right or wrong. In the first place, the basic assumptions of both positions already had loopholes from the start. I agree with Jane English that not all killings are murders especially her point on self-defense. If it would indeed harm the woman, then I think it would be acceptable to free the woman from the fetus. And I also accept Jane English’s argument that you cannot do whatever you please with a non-person. Even in our society, it is not acceptable to hurt or kill animals (which are non-persons) just for pleasure. Therefore, I disagree with the idea that abortion would be wrong or right depending on whether a fetus is a person or not because I believe that anything that has life and does not pose serious harm to others, has the right to live. Both assumptions have their points. But both of them are still unacceptable for me because their assumptions are very limited on defending their own positions. They want to have a clear win over the other- something that, as we all know, impossible to achieve. To establish a more acceptable assumption, both sides should be open-minded enough to consider the points of the other, and not merely selecting conditions or arguments that would favor them. Is abortion right or wrong? I believe it would be better not to answer this in a general sense. I mean, let us remember that what is right in our country may not be morally right on another nation vice versa. Many things that are considered right centuries or just decades ago are now established as wrong. And what is now considered as right may be considered wrong in the future vice versa. The concept of right or wrong is also subjective and has a problem in itself. So I think it is inappropriate to give a general statement that abortion is universally right or it is universally wrong. Instead, we should answer this on a case to case basis by looking at the situation. For example, if a poor (financially) teenage girl engages in premarital sex, gets pregnant and wants to abort her baby, then abortion is wrong because she was irresponsible to engage in premarital sex without thinking of the consequences. Her baby has nothing to do with it and should not be killed for the fault of the teenage girl.. Some anti-abortion peeps agree that abortion is justified only if it poses a serious threat to the woman. And in the case of the teenage girl, Pro-abortion peeps may argue that since the girl had unwanted pregnancy and is worried that this could harm her in the future (in terms of her studies or career), and abortion is justified if it could harm a person, then the girl could abort her baby. But this argument is wrong because if the girl is thinking of her future, then she should not have had premarital sex in the first place. Having sex to have pleasure and then aborting the unwanted child without any serious threat (to her body) just to save her future career is pure SELFISHNESS. So in this case, abortion is wrong. In fact, abortion itself could be seriously harmful to a woman’s body. It could sometimes lead to the death of both mother and child. However, if, as mentioned for so many times already, the fetus may really harm the body of the woman, then abortion is justified. Yet, it is important to determine first the severity of the threat. Like what is mentioned in one of the articles, killing people for self-defense is justified depending on the threat being posed. If the person is on the act of shooting you and you are certain that he will, then you may shoot him before he does the same to you. But if you have a hidden gun and a person that is still a few feet away from you, is walking towards you and is threatening to stab you with the sharp part of a nail cutter (the one used in removing dirt under the nails), I don’t think shooting him to death is necessary. Perhaps running away would do or as a last resort, shoot him in the foot or the leg. Incapacitate him but not kill him. Applying this to the issue of abortion, if the threat posed to the body of the woman may cost her her life, abortion is justified. But if the threat, although serious, could be treated or mitigated without having to kill the child, then abortion is not justified. In Don Marquis’ article, he said that the biggest reason why killing is wrong is because it deprives the person killed of all the value that he had and would have in the future. Killing the fetus without any reasonable cause then deprives him/her the value that he/she would have in the future. Therefore, abortion is wrong or right not on whether a fetus is a person or not, but depending on the circumstance/ situation.

QUILICOT · Posts: 5 Join date: 2008-11-24

QUILICOT, MARIE DOMINIQUE

Abortion is a multi faceted issue and until now, it remains as a dilemma to most women today. Many writers, mostly feminists, have written about it and have had their say but until today, there is no black and white, clear answer if it is indeed truly moral or not.

Many feminists actually clamor for pro- choice. Sally Markowitz in particular claims that even if a fetus has a right to life, its status should be independent from the woman. Because, if the woman is suffering from discrimination and inequality in a society frowning upon unwanted pregnancies, then abortion becomes morally permissible, unless the society we belong in becomes purely egalitarian. Another feminist, Laura Hershey says that pro- life advocates hinder the lives and freedom of many women in society. They should be able to make decisions for their happiness and bodies. Yet, she contradicts her own premise saying that, if a woman aborts her baby if it’s disabled, then it’s immoral since it shows discrimination of the disabled and handicap.

On the pro- life side, Don Marquis claims that killing deprives its victims of more than any other crime: the loss of one’s entire future life (activities, projects, experiences, enjoyments). So, killing is morally wrong. It is the value of the lost future that makes killing wrong. He says that in this case, the at of euthanasia is justifiable since terminally ill and suffering patients do not have any valuable future to lose. Since fetuses have an even greater future to loose than children or adults, then it is prima facie wrong to abort (kill) fetuses.

Jane English then justifies that no necessary and sufficient conditions (though there are necessary conditions and there are sufficient conditions, they do not help resolve the abortion issue) for abortion to be morally permissible or impermissible. Playing the devil’s advocate, she says that if fetus is a person, some abortions are permissible in self-defense against innocent threats to mother's well-being, life prospects, or mental or physical health. But even if fetus is not a person, coherence of our moral sentiments (e.g. sympathy) and attitudes would require that we give moral consideration to person-like beings. In the latest stages of pregnancy, abortion is psychologically akin to murder.