Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Abortion and womens rights today
Abortion and women's rights
Debate about abortion being legal
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
(SUMMARY ANTI-ABORTION)
Don Marquis, on the other side of the abortion debate begins his essay “Why abortion is immoral” through the frustration of little support being given to the thought. This essay was writen to show the falsified belief that an anti-abortion stance is nothing other than irrational religious dogma or a conclusion generated by a seriously confused philosophical argument. The argument is set forth throughout that abortion is, except in rare cases, seriously immoral. This essay sets forth the belief that abortion is in the same category as killing an innocent adult human being. this reading fails to provide any argument for the “hotly debated” abortion circumstances such as : abortion before implantation, abortion due to
…show more content…
According to Marquis, “Being a person is understood by the pro-choicer as having certain psychological attributes”(Marquis, 756). Marquis feels that the pro-choice view is flawed because there is no way showing that a fetus is not a person. Marquis tries to bring Immanuel Kant into the scope. I feel that the argument with Kant is not persuasive. He arrives at the conclusion,”No true Kantian would treat persons as she would treat animals. Thus, Kant’s defense of our duties to animals fails to show that Kantians have a duty not to be cruel to animals”(Marquis, 757). Marquis fails to take into consideration the premise of Kant’s thinking: the categorical imperative. Using the categorical imperative, an action can only be moral if it is applied as universal law. “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”(Kant). How could we make abortion a universal law? Clearly there are so many loopholes and circumstances where abortion could be permissible, but that would not apply to universal law because there would be exceptions. Therefore, Marquis’s use of Kant is not …show more content…
Marquis cites the example of FLO (Future Like Ours). Marquis is highly persuasive using this FLO method because he uses emotional attachment comparing the life of a fetus to a life that we may experience. If we were aborted as a fetus, we would not have the life experiences we did. Marquis relates the life of a fetus to ours and tries to convince us as we would not want to be aborted, neither would the fetus. He cites that the only reason killing could be permissible is if we are killing in self defense, to save our own life. The FLO account of the wrongness of killing says that the loss of a future of value is a misfortune, making abortion
What is abortion? Abortion is killing a fetus inside a mother’s womb. According to Don Marquis, killing a fetus is morally impermissible. Marquis came up with an argument that views abortion as immoral and only in rare cases is it accepted. There are only a few rare cases that abortion is morally acceptable according to Marquis in his article, “Why Abortion is Immoral.” Marquis’s view on abortion is relatable because I am a woman and seeing as I am able to bare a child, I feel it is a women’s right to decide if abortion is permissible or not because it is her body and she has all the rights to her own body. Later described is FLO, one of Marquis’s arguments proving abortion is morally impermissible. I do not agree with the FLO argument. Marquis makes strong points, which can be agreeable, but in summary of Marquis’s arguments, he needs to have a more valid case of FLO.
In this paper I will discuss Don Marquis’s essay “Why Abortion is Immoral” and Judith Jarvis Thomson’s objections to Marquis’ argument against abortion.
The chapter, Church, has the troop hold up in a church for a few days. In the church, the monks take an immediately likely to the troop help with food and weapon cleaning. A few of the soldiers discuss what they wanted to do before the war. The troops learn more about each other and insight into what faith can be to them.
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.
Parker attempts to use pathos in order to appeal to her audience's emotion. For example, she appeals to her audiences’ weaknesses by saying that women who have undergone an abortion feel shame, yet how can someone determine that another feels shameful because they realize that abortion is wrong. You could easily argue that they were in a state of depression because they miss their baby; that does not make them shameful.
In this paper I will be arguing in favor of Judith Jarvis Thomson view point on abortion. I am defending the use abortion and only in the first trimester. I will consider Don Marquis objections of the practice but ultimately side with Thomson.
Don Marquis is a philosopher arguing that any form of abortion is immoral. His original thesis states: In the overwhelming majority of cases, deliberate abortions are seriously immoral. He begins by stating why killing is wrong in three statements. He states, “killing is wrong because it brutalizes the killer, it is a loss to others, and it robs the victim of all the experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted one’s future” (68). The first two statements do not address the fetus, but the last statement is very arguable, so Marquis emphasizes his argument on this premise. Depriving anybody of their future has many consequences. Some parts of a person’s future are valued now and some parts could be valued later. Therefore, it is wrong to kill any adult human because it is a loss of future (which has value). He addresses the questions of personhood by stating that fetuses have the potential to be humans. Therefore, killing a fetus is depriving the fetus of having a
Patrick Lee and Robert P. George’s, “The Wrong of Abortion” is a contentious composition that argues the choice of abortion is objectively unethical. Throughout their composition, Lee and George use credibility and reason to appeal the immorality of abortions. The use of these two methods of persuasion are effective and compels the reader to consider the ethical significance. Lee and George construct their argument by disputing different theories that would justify abortions. They challenge the ontological and evaluation theories of the fetus, as well as the unintentional killing theory. This article was obtained through Google, in the form of a PDF file that is associated with Iowa State University.
Marquis’s argument that it is immoral to kill, and abortion is wrong because it deprives one of a valuable future has a lot of problems in my eyes that does not make his view on anti-abortion solid. The lack of arguments that do not raise questions that seem to go unanswered make it hard to be persuaded to change a pro-abortionist mind or even be open to understanding where Marquis’s arguments lead. His “what if” argument leaves room for anyone opposing to “what if” in any direction which is not grounds for an effective argument and hurts Marquis’s because a lot of the questions go unanswered in his essay.
Abortion is a considered a sensitive topic in society; as a result it is not frequently mentioned or discussed. However; Marquis has decided to voice his opinion on the matter.
In my opinion, Marquis’ argument for why abortion is morally wrong has a couple of flaws, it’s biased towards the fetus and makes some unreasonable assumptions. Specifically, Marquis' account of why killing an adult human is wrong can potentially lead to some controversial conclusions. Marquis also doesn't consider any consequences on the lives of the potential parents of the fetus. Due to the nature of the topic of abortion, it really only applies to women who are thinking of getting an abortion, and as such, we cannot make the standard assumptions that we will have with normal fetuses. In this essay I will explain Marquis' argument, and try to show that his argument cannot conclude that abortion is morally wrong.
The definition of a person is an aspect of the abortion issue which raises some very difficult questions. Is an unborn baby a person? When does the unborn baby become a person? This is a difficult question because in order for one to answer it, he must define the essence of a person. When describing the essence of something, one needs to describe the necessary and sufficient conditions of that thing. So how does one define the essence of a person? Kant describes a person as a rational being. Some people define the essence of a person from more of a biological standpoint. Nevertheless, defining the essence of a person is a very difficult thing for a group of people to agree on. One’s own definition of a person would most likely greatly impact his opinion on whether abortion is morally justified ...
Abortion is an important and rather popular topic in the philosophical world. On one side of the argument, pro choice, Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that abortion is permissible because the pregnancy might not have been voluntary or the mother’s life is at risk if she continues on with the pregnancy. On the opposing side of the argument, Don Marquis argues that abortion is wrong because it takes away all the potential things a fetus could value in their future life. In this paper, I will argue against Don Marquis view of abortion. I will begin by explaining that Marquis does not take into consideration the effect the pregnancy may have on the mother, and I will talk about how Thomson does take the mother into consideration. Next, I will criticize
Abortion has been a heated topic over the years, and one of the most controversial subjects in today’s political debates. In his article “Planned Parenthood Means Fewer Abortions,” Michael Spector employs a variety of different literary devices in order to create his rhetorical appeal and grant his own insight into the subject. He uses a combination of allusion, hyperbole, rhetorical questions, and anecdotes to create the desired tone throughout the writing, thus forming a logical stance on a usually emotionally biased debate.
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.