FINAL #06

6. How does Peter Singer view abortion? Describe his reasoning process. More importantly, do you agree? Justify philosophically (explain in depth; do not write simply yes or no). (note: when explaining Singer's position here note that he is not simply pro-life or for abortion--his answer is a bit more complicated...explain the "specifics" of his position...it is not black or white but a bit grey....explain the greyness.....in what circumstances is abortion acceptable to Singer and in what circumstances is it not.)

simply put, singer is for abortion. by applying his ethical theory that is highly influenced by utilitarianism, singer challenges the premise that a fetus is an innocent human being. singer claims that a fetus is not a human being; he considers the level of rationality, self-consciousness, and awareness, and concludes that a fetus is at the same level as that of nonhuman animals. a fetus, singer claims, has no sense of rationality, no awareness, and is not self-conscious. since a fetus does not have the characteristics of a person, then it cannot claim the rights of being a person. singer also challenges the claim that fetus has the right of a person because it has a potential for life. he claims that although a fetus IS a potential human being, the argument that it is wrong to kill a potential human being is a weak one. again singer claims that having a potential to become a human being does not imply that the fetus can claim the rights of a human being. he also addresses the objection that says that killing a fetus would deprive the world of something that is intrinsically valuable: he argues that contraception and celibacy does the pretty much same thing but are not considered to be morally wrong. singer claims, however, from a utilitarianist standpoint, that the killing of a fetus does cause pain and not pleasure, not to the fetus itself, but to the parents of the fetus. thus, he concludes that if the parents have no objection then abortion does not inflict pain on anyone and ---from a utilitarianist point of view--- is not morally wrong.

i have personal dislikes for singer and his argument, although at first i found them quite convincing. singer based his arguments solely on materialistic aspect, but probably all utilitarianists do. the way he values life is through the concept of "pleasure vs pain." something is valuable if it produces pleasure, and not if it produces pain. his argument makes sense, but i feel that it lacks the compassion for the fetus itself. singer claims from a utilitarian point of view that since a fetus is not a human being, then the interest of the fetus itself should not be taken into consideration. i am not against animal killing, but fetus is not the same as animals, so i am against the killing of a fetus. it is extremely displeasing to see how singer classifies fetus in the same category as a nonhuman animals. a fetus has the potential to develop into human beings with intelligence while animals will develop into animals whose instinct dominates over intelligence. for this reason, a fetus should be valued more than animals.