Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
A Defense of Abortion
A defense of abortion critique
Arguments against abortion
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In ‘Abortion and Infanticide’, Michael Tooley discusses whether an unborn child and/or newborn baby fits the definition of a person. He argues that only persons have a right to life, and as foetuses and newborn infants are not persons they do not have a right to life, therefore, abortion and infanticide are morally permissible. In this paper, I will discuss Don Marquis’s objection to this theory in his paper ‘Why abortion is immoral’ and give my reasoning as to why I agree with aspects from both sides of the argument.
Within his paper ‘Abortion and Infanticide’ Tooley defines a person as a being who is capable of desiring to continue as a subject of experience and other mental states. In other words, he believes that an active interest must
…show more content…
The story goes, you have a kitten that will grow into an adult cat. Based on Tooley’s theory, this cat would lack the properties that give moral standing, just as a foetus or new born baby does. However, let’s just say this kitten was injected with magic chemical that makes the kitten grow to have a human level of consciousness, therefore it will have the properties that give it moral standing. As the kitten grows into a cat, it has the potential to have moral standing (Tooley, 1972). Just as an unborn child does as it grows into an adult. Personally I don’t agree with this analogy, as a human child will always have the potential to grow into a human adult with moral standing however, injecting a kitten to give it moral standing can be seen as changing the abilities of the kitten instead of realising them (Morriss, 2002).
Don Marquis’s opposes Tooleys view. He argues that abortion is, except possibly in rare cases, seriously immoral, and that it should be placed in the same moral category as killing an innocent human being (Marquis, 1989 p. 183). His belief is that killing someone is wrong because the victim suffers the greatest loss one can suffer, the loss of life. This loss deprives one of all experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments that would have constituted as ones future (Marquis, 1989 p. 189). Marquis’s argument is summarised below;
1. If X has a future like ours of great value, and
…show more content…
In Abortion and Infanticide, Tooley states that he is inclined to believe that a foetus is human well before birth (Tooley, 1972 p. 42). This I believe to be true also. Where my opinion differs to Tooleys and becomes more in line with Marquis is that I believe that during the pregnancy this human organism becomes a person. For me personally, this point in time would be by the twelfth week. After this period, except in exceptional circumstances, I believe the killing of a foetus is morally wrong, and as abortion is the killing of a human foetus this therefore makes abortion also morally wrong. This also accounts for infanticide. Once a child has been born alive to a mother, that child has a right to life. For me the intentional killing of an innocent and defenceless baby is never
In Don Marquis’s essay “Why Abortion is Immoral” he argues that abortion is immoral because he believes that abortion is morally equivalent to killing an adult human being. Marquis’ argument takes the following form:
Thus, Marquis’ argument for his pro-life view on abortion is flawed because one of his premises is not completely correct. Marquis argues that fetuses, children, and adults are all human beings and have the right to life. Also, Marquis says that losing one’s life is one of the worst things that can happen to a human being. So he technically declares that it is horrible to die, but not the worst thing to happen to someone. He starts out with the first premise about how the killing of a fetus deprives it of its potential future experiences.
Right to life suggests that the right in question concerns the continued existence of a biological organism (p. 46). The example given is a brain that is reprogrammed with memories, beliefs, personality traits, and attitudes that are different from those that were associated with the organism before it was reprogrammed. Even though the organism has not been killed, some may say the person’s right to life has been violated. Tooley uses this example to show that the expression right to life is misleading, because what one is concerned about is the right to the subject’s experiences and other mental states, not the continued existence of the biological
Mary Anne Warren’s “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion” describes her justification that abortion is not a fundamentally wrong action for a mother to undertake. By forming a distinction between being genetically human and being a fully developed “person” and member of the “moral community” that encompasses humanity, Warren argues that it must be proven that fetuses are human beings in the morally relevant sense in order for their termination to be considered morally wrong. Warren’s rationale of defining moral personhood as showcasing a combination of five qualities such as “consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, capacity of communication, and self-awareness” forms the basis of her argument that a fetus displays none of these elements that would justify its classification as a person and member of the morally relevant community (Timmons 386).
These distinctions are important to his argument because they allow us to have a clear picture of what the properties for right to life might encompass. According to Tooley, the state of ‘being a person’ entails the state of ‘having a serious moral right to life.’ However, Tooley believes being a person is not synonymous with being a human being, as the interchangeable use of the terms can assume fetuses and newborns automatically have a serious right to life, which Tooley does not agree with, as well as make the disagreement about whether or not it is a fact that fetuses and newborns qualify as humans rather than the moral principles this would entail. The separation between right to life and other rights is one of these principles, and Tooley claims that having a right to something can also be stated in its most basic form as “If A desires x, then others are under a prima facie obligation to refrain from actions that would deprive him of it.” When expanded to clarify applicable circumstances and avoid objections, this statement comprises Tooley’s main argument, the self-consciousness
Why Abortion is Immoral by Don Marquis is an essay that claims that abortion is morally wrong, and uses one argument in particular to explain why. He argues that many of us would agree that it is wrong to kill a human, and if you believe that, then you should also have that view on abortions. If you think killing is wrong then you think all killing is wrong and the persons biological state, whether it is when a person is a fetus, one year old, or thirty years old, makes no difference. He then explains that killing is wrong not only because it is immoral, but wrong because it deprives the victim of life and the enjoyments one would have otherwise experienced; which Marquis believes is the greatest loss one can suffer (Marquis, 189). Given certain circumstances, Marquis agrees there are cases where killing is acceptable, but nonetheless it is immoral.
To conclude, Marquis’s argument that abortion is wrong is incorrect. Thomson gives many examples of why Marquis is wrong, including that the mother’s right to her body
Thomson starts off her paper by explaining the general premises that a fetus is a person at conception and all persons have the right to life. One of the main premises that Thomson focuses on is the idea that a fetus’ right to life is greater than the mother’s use of her body. Although she believes these premises are arguable, she allows the premises to further her explanation of why abortion could be morally permissible. People would find it more understanding and more willing to help someone who is a relative.
In the article 'A Defense of Abortion' Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that abortion is morally permissible even if the fetus is considered a person. In this paper I will give a fairly detailed description of Thomson main arguments for abortion. In particular I will take a close look at her famous 'violinist' argument. Following will be objections to the argumentative story focused on the reasoning that one person's right to life outweighs another person's right to autonomy. Then appropriate responses to these objections. Concluding the paper I will argue that Thomson's 'violinist' argument supporting the idea of a mother's right to autonomy outweighing a fetus' right to life does not make abortion permissible.
The criterion for personhood is widely accepted to consist of consciousness (ability to feel pain), reasoning, self-motivation, communication and self-awareness. When Mary Anne Warren states her ideas on this topic she says that it is not imperative that a person meet all of these requirements, the first two would be sufficient. We can be led to believe then that not all human beings will be considered persons. When we apply this criterion to the human beings around us, it’s obvious that most of us are part of the moral community. Although when this criterion is applied to fetuses, they are merely genetic human beings. Fetuses, because they are genetically human, are not included in the moral community and therefore it is not necessary to treat them as if they have moral rights. (Disputed Moral Issues, p.187). This idea is true because being in the moral community goes hand in hand w...
Mary Anne Warren contends that abortion is morally permissible on the grounds that a fetus is not a person. In her eyes, although, fetuses are genetically distinct humans they are not people because they do not have the necessary characteristics for personhood: sentience, reasoning, emotionality, the capacity to communicate, self-awareness, and moral agency. For her, the lack of these characteristics do not necessarily allude that a fetus is not a person only that it belittles the confidence that they are a person- or in other words creates doubt of their personhood. In this essay, I shall argue when it comes to emotionality Warren sets the bar too high and indoingso runs the risk of wrongly overlooking different types of emotionality, which
...e open to all women at any point of pregnancy, and that the woman reserves the right as a fully conscious member of the moral community to choose to carry the child or not. She argues that fetuses are not persons or members of the moral community because they don’t fulfill the five qualities of personhood she has fashioned. Warren’s arguments are valid, mostly sound, and cover just about all aspects of the overall topic. However much she was inconsistent on the topic of infanticide, her overall writing was well done and consistent. Warren rejects emotional appeal in a very Vulcan like manner; devout to reason and logic and in doing so has created a well-written paper based solely on this rational mindset.
In A Defense of Abortion (Cahn and Markie), Judith Thomson presents an argument that abortion can be morally permissible even if the fetus is considered to be a person. Her primary reason for presenting an argument of this nature is that the abortion argument at the time had effectively come to a standstill. The typical anti-abortion argument was based on the idea that a fetus is a person and since killing a person is wrong, abortion is wrong. The pro-abortion adopts the opposite view: namely, that a fetus is not a person and is thus not entitled to the rights of people and so killing it couldn’t possibly be wrong.
Many argue that Infanticide is morally wrong. Infanticide is the act of killing an infant. Killing an infant deprives it of all the experiences and enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted the infant’s future. An infant is considered a person. Since an infant is considered a person, Infanticide is the act of killing a person. Killing an innocent person is universally considered to be morally wrong. Therefore, Infanticide is considered to be morally wrong. However an objection to this argument arises when defining what is considered to be an individual. A person is defined as a being with some awareness of who they are, existing simply beyond the physical body. The child is not a person until they are capable of understanding they are a being that can experience. Until the child realizes this, the interests of actual people override the interest of merely potential people, thus making Infanticide acceptable. Infants are then humans who are not pe...
Article 3, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, states “everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of a person” (Goodhart, 379). This article creates cultural discrepancies that are rooted in interpreting undefined and ambiguous language. For example, there are cultural disputes concerning the definition of a “person”. In many monotheistic cultures, abortion is considered a crime. Advocates of this opinion support that a fetus is a human being from conception.