Comparison between abortion and the wanton infliction of pain on animals.

Throughout the arguments laid out by Don Marquis in this passage, it becomes clearer and clearer that he is not afraid to go to an extreme level when comparing abortion to things that are bad or morally wrong. In the case of one of his arguments in which he attempts to make a comparison between abortion and "wanton" infliction of pain on animals, he seems to consciously make an effort to associate the word "abortion" to "wanton infliction of pain" in the reader's mind, which I believe is a dysphemism and also a fallacy.

Beyond that, his argument that it is morally wrong for me to inflict pain upon him because pain causes suffering and suffering is a misfortune is very much correct in my mind. The issue that arises with his argument then is that he does not seem to take into account the gray area that is present when the discussion of a fetus becomes involved. My question for him would be in this case, at what point can he tell me for sure that the fetus is capable of registering the feeling of pain? Since fetuses are severely undeveloped at the time that an abortion is able to be done, can it be said for sure that the fetus has even developed the ability to feel? If it has not, then his argument comparing abortion to the infliction of pain on animals seems to be potentially irrelevant in that case. Since the fetus cannot feel pain, no suffering is caused, and therefore there is no misfortune.

The other issue that I had with this argument was his use of the word "wanton". By definition, wanton means: (of a cruel or violent action) deliberate and unprovoked. While I do not believe that all women who get abortions do it for a good or well thought out reason, I do believe that many abortion cases are not unprovoked by something. We could even say that Don Marquis was using "wanton" in a more literal sense that would suggest that he means unprovoked by the fetus, but even in that case it may not hold. If the pregnancy of the woman is directly going to put her life in danger, then an abortion would not be unprovoked. In fact, in that case, even though the fetus is unable to know it, its presence in the mother's body and the resulting threat to her life that it is imposing on would cause the resulting abortion to have been provoked by the fetus itself. There are also other outside influences such as the woman becoming pregnant as the result of a rape, or a situation similar to that, which would provoke the mother to get an abortion.

Due to these holes that can be found in this argument, I can only believe that this particular argument that Marquis poses is irrelevant and unsound.