This essay argues against abortion from a pro-life perspective, engaging with key philosophical and moral objections to the practice. Drawing on scholars such as John Noonan and John Paul II, the paper challenges the pro-choice claim that the fetus is not a living human being, contending that uncertainty about when life begins should itself give pause. The essay further argues that abortion is morally degrading because it denies humanity to the unborn, and that selfish motivations often drive the decision. Adoption is presented as a morally superior alternative. The paper concludes that terminating a pregnancy constitutes the taking of a human life and reflects a broader cultural prioritization of convenience over moral responsibility.
One argument that pro-abortion advocates frequently raise is that we do not know when life actually begins. Those in favor of abortion maintain that the fetus is nothing more than a mass of cells that cannot live on its own. What pro-abortion proponents fail to recognize, however, is that many other human beings fall into the same category — and we do not kill them. For example, many human beings are disabled and cannot survive, or live, on their own. Even young children are incapable of living independently. By the same standard, those who argue from viability would logically have to accept harming these individuals as well. While this conclusion seems ludicrous, it follows the same internal logic as the pro-choice movement applies to the unborn.
In addition, the simple fact that we debate over when life begins should itself indicate something important. It should be relatively straightforward to determine whether something is alive. In short, something is either dead or it is living. If the mass of cells in a woman's womb is certainly not dead, then it must be alive. The question of when human life begins has been central to ethical, legal, and scientific debates about abortion for decades, and the inability to resolve it easily suggests that the matter deserves profound moral caution.
Because abortion takes a life, it is morally degrading. John Noonan asserts that how we perceive humanity determines how we treat it. He points out that the "fetus is not socially perceived as human. It cannot communicate with others . . . If society depends on social recognition, individuals or whole groups may be dehumanized by being denied any status in their society" (Noonan 61). Viewed from this perspective, excluding members of our society based on their condition or on how we perceive them is deeply degrading.
John Paul II believed that life begins at conception, adding, "No one more absolutely innocent could be imagined" (Giovanni). Unborn babies are "defenseless, even to the point of lacking that minimal form of defense" (Giovanni). This defenselessness is precisely what makes the moral stakes of the abortion debate so significant — those most in need of protection are those with no ability to advocate for themselves.
Abortion is, for many women, a decision made for selfish reasons — not in a harshly judgmental sense, but in the practical sense that it offers an easy answer to a difficult problem without seriously considering the alternative of adoption, which can prove to be a blessing for all parties involved. Adoption is not as immediately simple as abortion, and so it is too often dismissed without due consideration. This disregard for life should be a wake-up call. Adoption offers a path that affirms both the life of the unborn child and the well-being of families who wish to provide a home.
If pro-abortion advocates want to argue for the rights of the mother, then they must also respect the life of the unborn baby. If there is no life growing in the womb, then it is dead — and if it is dead, why are we arguing at all? The answer is because, on some level, we all recognize that there is a baby in that womb and that it is alive, even though it is helpless. To kill that baby is murder, and it only contributes to the culture of immediate gratification and selfishness that America has increasingly embraced.
"Critiques selfish motives; advocates adoption"
Noonan, John T. "An Almost Absolute Value in History." Contemporary Moral Problems. New York: West Publishing Company, 1991. pp. 57–61.
You’re 89% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.