Glaittli|1

Ethan Glaittli

Gregory Spendlove

Philosophy 1120

November 26, 2018

On Abortion

Abortion is defined as the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, and is a topic

that has been heavily debated, especially within the last few years. Many of these arguments

boil down to whether or not the fetus is considered life, or an actual person. Even when it is

assumed that the fetus is a life, where do we draw the line on whether the mother’s right to

choose what happens to her body outweighs the child’s right to life? Angela Davis, a former

professor and political activist gives the idea that it is a woman’s right to become a mother

when she chooses, amongst other positions she takes in her writings (Davis). Which I agree

with, however, it is also my position that in the case of common conception, abortion is not a

form of birth control and is wrong.

It’s important to include the term “common conception” in this thesis because it is easy

for people to bring up examples of misleading vividness. I am not talking about cases involving

rape or the endangerment of the mother’s life, which a minor percentage of abortions. I am

talking about the far more common case of conception, which is consensual sex. When a

woman and a man engage in intercourse for whatever reason they may, with the criteria that

they both have agreed to do it. As I see it that is the choice. You choose to risk pregnancy when
 Glaittli|2

you choose to have sex. It’s as simple as that. So then why is it not now an entirely new choice

to have an abortion or not? I would argue that abortion is not a form of birth control and if

you’re pregnant you’re pregnant. This stance stems, importantly, from the fact that life begins

at conception. But I would also say it comes from the idea of living with consequences, and not

even an abortion can change the objective fact that that individual now exists, with the same

potential for a future that the mother and father had.

I would compare this to a case of murder by gun shot. If a person takes aim and fires a

gun at someone else, that bullet has a chance to hit them, and if it does that person will die. To

make it more vivid let’s say the bullet was dipped in poison so even if it barely grazes the victim,

they will die. That person who fired can do whatever they want to change the details of the

shot, such as standing further away, using an older less accurate gun, or covering the pistol with

rubber latex. In every situation if the gunslinger takes aim and fires there is a chance that it will

hit the victim and that victim will die. So, in the case of abortion if a woman decides to have sex

with a man, regardless of what form of birth control she uses (condoms, pills, etc.) there is a

chance, even if it’s a slim one, that she will get pregnant. It then follows that that child now

exists. Even if they live for only a short time and they really are aborted, or even if they die of

natural causes, person X, currently a fetus, now exists and the woman cannot choose to not be

pregnant or to have created that life. Just as the gunslinger cannot choose for the victim to not

die if they are hit, they can only choose whether or not to aim and fire.

Im not saying that having a child or getting pregnant is a negative at all. Quite the

opposite in fact. And, of course, it takes two to tango as explained in our criteria of “common

conception”. The man in this scenario doesn’t escape without being a part of why the gun is
 Glaittli|3

fired. But we are focusing on refuting the “woman’s choice” argument. And it’s clear in this

argument that neither the mother or father choose whether or not the fetus is a life or a

person. When parents talk to their daughter they don’t say to her “when the lifeless zygomatic

clump of cells that eventually came to life and became you was in your mother’s belly we were

so excited.” No! They say “when you were in your mother’s belly” or “when we were pregnant

with you”. Their daughter was an individual since day one. Couples who don’t want children can

attempt to distance themselves from the person they’ve created but it doesn’t change the fact

that it’s a person.

So then, why is that wrong? This now can lead into an argument of why death or murder

is bad or wrong. In the case of abortion Don Marquis, a professor of philosophy, argues that it’s

purely that the individual was denied a future that it’s wrong. He explains this using two

premises:

“In the first place this theory explains why we regard killing as one of the worst

of crimes. Killing is especially wrong, because it deprives the victim of more than

perhaps any other crime. In the second place, people with AIDs or cancer who know

they are dying believe, of course, that dying is a very bad thing for them. They believe

that the loss of a future to them that they would otherwise have experienced tis what

makes their premature death a very bad thing for them.” (Marquis)

Abortion on its own and as a whole is wrong, and when considered a standard form of

birth control it can be even more destructive. It’s not something that can be swept under the

rug in life. It is life to be handled and respected as much as any other life. Given the right to live
 Glaittli|4

and have a future just as the lives that created it got. That is not something that any parent can

choose. They cannot choose to get pregnant or not (except through abstinence, but that’s no

fun) and they cannot choose for that life to not exist once it does.
 Glaittli|5

Sources:
Davis, Angela, “Racism, Birthcontrol and Reproductive Rights,” Women. Race and Class. New

York: Vintage Books, 1983

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/rtl9cdxfz7028tq/AABs2u2tw4urcOSk-

7pmehmma?dl=0&preview=(01)+Case+Studies+Reading+Packet+1.pdf

Thomson, Judith Jarvis. “A Defense of Abortion” Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol 1, Nov. 1

1971, https://www.dropbox.com/sh/rtl9cdxfz7028tq/AABs2u2tw4urcOSk-

7pmehmma?dl=0&preview=(01)+Case+Studies+Reading+Packet+1.pdf

English, Jane, “Abortion and the Concept of a Person” Canadian Journal of Philosophy. Vol 5,

no.2 October 1972, https://www.dropbox.com/sh/rtl9cdxfz7028tq/AABs2u2tw4urcOSk-

7pmehmma?dl=0&preview=(01)+Case+Studies+Reading+Packet+1.pdf

Marquis, Don, “Why Abortion is Immoral,” The Journal of Philosophy, Vol 86, No. 4, April 1989,

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/rtl9cdxfz7028tq/AABs2u2tw4urcOSk-

7pmehmma?dl=0&preview=(01)+Case+Studies+Reading+Packet+1.pdf

Gordon, John-Stewart, “Abortion” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Ruhr-University Bochum,

Germany. https://www.iep.utm.edu/abortion/