Why Is Abortion Morally Wrong

Abortion, killing or disposing? There are many arguments surrounding the controversial topic of abortion, which for the purpose of this paper is taken to mean the intentional killing of a human fetus. On the one hand, I and many others argue that a fetus has the same right to life as an adult human and therefore abortion is immoral. On the other hand, others argue that this is not the case and that the fetus either doesn’t have the same right to life as an adult or that this right is of secondary importance to the rights of the mother. They therefore believe that abortion is not immoral.

Due to the many and varied arguments for the morality of abortion I will limit the scope of this paper by concentrating my efforts to refuting the argument

While I do admit that some of the reasons why I believe this are because I am Roman Catholic, I however, will limit my arguments to those based on a non religious view point to show why abortion is morally wrong. To do this I will argue that human life has an inherent value above any other life on earth. Some might object that without acknowledging the existence of a soul this can’t be argued. Indeed Singer states that the idea of a human life having inherent value is a product of Christianity and the idea should be challenged. I however think that I can make a reasonable argument for an inherent value theory. Others might object that the importance of the abortion debate is blown out of proportion, I disagree. The morality of abortion is of the upmost importance because if fetuses’ do have an intrinsic right to life, then wholesale murder is being conducted on a historically unprecedented scale daily. To begin with I will present the standard argument for why abortion is immoral. The first premise which is one that most people would agree with, that it is morally wrong to kill an innocent human being. The second premise is that a fetus is an innocent human being, which is slightly more of a controversial statement. The conclusion, following from these two premises is that it is therefore morally wrong to kill a human fetus. This argument, I think, is the best argument

In his book De Vinck describes the impact that his brother, Oliver had on his and De Vinck's family. His brother was an extremely handicapped child, so much so that for his entire life Oliver never left his bed. He had to be spoon fed every meal, bathed and later, as he grew, shaved since Oliver lived until he was almost 33 years old. Oliver never learned to talk nor did he have any of the things that Paske and Singer would use to grant personhood to him. Yet he could laugh, and his family could love him, and because they loved him they could take care of him for his entire life. This I think serves to illustrate the defining characteristic of what it means to be human. My point here is that it isn’t what an individual does or doesn’t do that makes them human, but rather what they could do given the opportunity. Not every family would have or could have taken care of Oliver as the De Vinck’s did. Many people would have institutionalized Oliver while I am not saying that would be wrong I am saying that the De Vinck’s showed what it is to be human. It is to be at once a member of the species Homo sapiens and to have at the very least the potential to love and have a moral