Abortion In Country X Analysis

Women are prohibited from abortion in country X. This remains a major problem because country X doesn’t respect women’s political or civil rights that involve making decisions regarding their bodily integrity, which forces women to carry fetuses to term. In this paper, I will argue that we ought to reject Don Marquis’ notion of opposing abortion due to the presence of the fetus’s future of value because Marquis fails to properly account for the type of future that the female fetus would eventually have in a particular setting like country X where civil and political rights are extremely limited. Moreover, the right to life objection conveys that the fetus’s right to life is significant despite the absence of a valuable future.
Don Marquis …show more content…
I would argue that the female fetus wouldn’t have a significant future of value even if abortion wasn’t committed. For example, country X encompasses beliefs that subordinate women because women aren’t granted civil or political rights, which implies that women receive minimal education and they aren’t permitted to make any important economic or social decisions regarding their life. The female fetus would eventually lead a restricted life that doesn’t have a significant future of value in a prejudiced society against women because the female fetus would have a brutal experience in which women are treated poorly without having any enjoyments of life (Warriner, 10). According to Marquis, the loss of future signifies the inability to complete goals and maintain interests (Warriner, 10). For example, if the female fetus isn’t aborted, then she would still lose her future of value because her interests or goals such as receiving post-secondary education or having a successful career in country X won’t be accomplished due to the restriction imposed on …show more content…
For example, the female fetus in country X has the right to live in society; regardless of the social hardships she will face in the future including the deprivation of civil rights and the lack of education. Abortion violates the right to life so abortion isn’t permissible despite the fetus’s lack of a valuable future. However, if the future of the fetus is irrelevant because the only element necessary when considering the permissibility of abortion is the right to life, then life would have no meaning. For example, the life of an individual involves maintaining goals, positive experiences, and enjoyment (Warriner, 10). On the other hand, the future of the female fetus in country X wouldn’t possess enjoyment or specific goals such as receiving a successful career or a higher education. This conveys that if the fetus in country X has no future of value due to the absence of experience and enjoyment, then living such a life would be futile since this life would be as good as dying. Consequently, abortion is a imperative action that prevents fetuses from living that doesn’t possess a future of value since an individual’s right to life depends on the future of value, which proves that abortion is permissible because the female fetus has no future of value in country