Abortion is "the intentional termination of a pregnancy which may include the loss of life of an unborn entity". During the eighth week of pregnancy, the development of the unborn entity known as the Fetus- an unborn offspring- begins, where brain activity becomes detectable. Note, the fetus is not considered Viable until the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy (S. Morris MarquisHO). According to Professor Steven Morris, a fetus becomes a person when it has sentience, viability, brain activity, self-consciousness, etc. "While many people agree that a day-old embryo does not have rights, most people agree that a fetus has rights on the day before it is born". Analyzing the following case: "In order to avoid pregnancy, Sue, a single 23-year-old
Thomson believes that the abortion issue cannot be decided strictly by determining whether or not the fetus has a right to life. She argues that even if we grant that the fetus is a moral person (has the right to life), it is not always the case that abortion is morally impermissible (S. Morris ThomsonHO). She understands that even if a fetus has a right to life, that does not necessarily outweigh the mother's right to do with her body as she sees fit. Therefore, the fetus' right to life is not absolute. Thomson uses the example that in order to save the mother's life due to a cardiac condition, she will die if she carries the baby to term. The fetus, being a person, has a right to life, but as the mother is a person too, so has she a right to life. An argument for this case is by having an abortion, you are directly killing the fetus, whereas if the mother were to die by giving birth, she is not being directly killed, just simply letting her die. If the mother were to perform the abortion on herself in order to save her own life, it would not be considered a murder (Thomson p41-42). "Everyone has a right to life, so the unborn person has a right to life" (Thomson p43). In certain cases (rape) she indeed believes that it is permissible to abort the fetus, but not always. If it is
Marquis solely believes that aborting the fetus at all costs is killing them. He is not interested in finding out whether or not the fetus is the person. He pursues his arguments on why we hold murder to be the worst crime and why would we hold it wrong to end the life of a permanently unconscious person. If the 23 year old woman Sue becomes pregnant due to her own fault, can she take care of a life? Let's say she has no one to help her take care of the child, no money, but doesn't want to live knowing that she put a daughter or son up for adoption because she couldn't take care of him or her. At this point, why is it still morally impermissible? Under any circumstance, the child cannot be cared for and will eventually end up dying due to lack of care. Sue is still technically killing the child by not giving the child the care it needs to live, so wouldn't that be the same as an abortion? Either way, the child ends up being killed based on the decision that the mother makes. If she decides to abort the child, she is not the one performing the duty, the doctor is. If she decides to keep the child, she is killing because she already understood the circumstance of having the child would lead to it
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 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:
In Dan Marquis’ article, “Why Abortion is Immoral”, he argues that aborting a fetus is like killing a human being already born and it deprives them of their future. Marquis leaves out the possible exceptions to abortion that include: a threat to the mom’s life, contraceptives, and pregnancy by rape. First, I will explain Marquis’ pro-life argument in detail about his statements of why abortion is morally wrong. Like in many societies, killing an innocent human being is considered morally wrong, just like in the United States. Second, I will state my objection to Marquis’ argument by examining the difference between a human being’s already born future compared to a potential fetus’s future.
Thomson’s main idea is to show why Pro-Life Activists are wrong in their beliefs. She also wants to show that even if the fetus inside a women’s body had the right to life (as argued by Pro – Lifers), this right does not entail the fetus to have whatever it needs to survive – including usage of the woman’s body to stay alive.
Thomson concludes that there are no cases where the person pregnant does not have the right to chose an abortion. Thomson considers the right to life of the pregnant person by presenting the case of a pregnant person dying as a result from their pregnancy. In this case, the right of the pregnant person to decide what happens to their body outweighs both the fetus and the pregnant person 's right to life. The right to life of the fetus is not the same as the pregnant person having to die, so as not to infringe on the right of the fetus. In the case of the violinist, their necessity for your body for life is not the same as their right over the use of your body. Thomson argues that having the right to life is not equal to having the right to use the body of another person. They argue that this is also the case, even if the the pregnant person knowingly participated in intercourse and knew of the possibility of pregnancy. In this case it would seem that abortion would not be permissible since the pregnancy was not by force. However, we are reverted back to the case of rape. If a fetus conceived voluntarily has the right not to be aborted due to how it was conceived, then the fetus conceived from rape should also have that same right. Instead of creating a distinction of cases where the fetus has a right to use the body of a pregnant person, Thomson instead makes a distinction of when abortion would be morally
She again uses a thought experiment where she presents a situation where if a mother were to carry her fetus to term that it would kill her. She states “we are told that performing the abortion would be directly killing the child, whereas doing nothing would not be killing the mother, but only letting her die,” which opens up an argument of the difference over killing a person and just letting them die when in this situation the mother could live if she was able to abort the pregnancy. She presents four scenarios to which this situation could end. The first is that killing an innocent is impermissible, so an abortion cannot take place. The second is killing an innocent is equivalent to murder, and murder is never okay so therefore an abortion can not take place. The third is, killing an innocent is worse then letting a person die therefore an abortion may not be performed. Finally, the fourth scenario is that if you have to choose between killing a person and letting them die you have to choose letting someone die and an abortion may not take place. She goes on to say that all of the scenarios are all false, but then only provides a reasoning for the second scenario saying that if the mother performed an abortion to save her own life that it could not
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
Granted that killing is wrong; the act of killing alone is not enough to make it immoral, and Marquis argues that it is not the effect it has on the murderer, or the effect of the victims family or friends, but the effect on the victim that makes killing wrong. The fact he/she is deprived of life experiences is the ultimate loss. He uses the example that when people are diagnosed with cancer (or any terminal illness) they experience firsthand what it means to deprive someone of their life and future. The experience of a premature death is one of the hardest challenges to face. This argument supports why abortion is immoral because we get to form a picture of what a fetus would feel if it was aware of what was happening, and Marquis uses pathos to helps create a deeper understanding and a paint a picture that everyone could understand. Even though many argue a fetus is not yet a person...
Marquis believes abortion to be extremely immoral. However he mentions that there are exceptions in rare but certain circumstances where abortion is acceptable. We can infer that these instances would include situations that would put the mother or child at serious risk by keeping the fetus. He is frustrated that this idea has received minimal support recently. As a result he wants to influence change in society in hopes of receiving the support and publicity this topic deserves. Marquis’ primary argument stems from the idea of killing in general. He explains it is immoral to kill an adult because it prematurely deprives the human of something they may have valued at the time they were killed, as well as something they may had valued in the future. Although the victim may not realize it at the time of their death, they certainly had a valuable future ahead of them to experience which has been cut short. We are the only ones who can decide what is valuable to them; in this case we value some things more than others, and this concept differs from person to person. For example, in the present I value the life I am given and the opportunity I have to earn my degree at Villanova University while also valuing my future as well knowing that I have a chance to be successful in the future. Although I have not succeeded yet, I still value that opportunity I have and the life I’m capable of achieving through earning a degree. Therefore, he connects this same theory to the life of a fetus. By killing the fetus the result is the same, we are depriving it of its futur...
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
Don Marquis primary argument lays on the fact that a fetus possesses a property, the possession of which in an adult human being is sufficient to make killing an adult human being wrong, makes abortion wrong (Gedge & Waluchow, 2012, p224). This property is the right to a valuable future. Marquis argument defends the position that abortion is morally wrong against pro-choice arguments, including the irrationality of a fetus, the lack of a fetus desire to live, and the fetus not being considered a victim.
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
In her article Thomson starts off by giving antiabortionists the benefit of the doubt that fetuses are human persons. She adds that all persons have the right to life and that it is wrong to kill any person. Also she states that someone?s right to life is stronger than another person?s autonomy and that the only conflict with a fetuses right to life is a mother?s right to autonomy. Thus the premises make abortion impermissible. Then Thomson precedes to attacks the premise that one?s right to autonomy can be more important to another?s right to life in certain situations. She uses quite an imaginative story to display her point of view. Basically there is a hypothetical situation in which a very famous violinist is dying. Apparently the only way for the violinist to survive is to be ?plugged? into a particular woman, in which he could use her kidneys to continue living. The catch is that the Society of Music Lovers kidnapped this woman in the middle of the night in order to obtain the use of her kidneys. She then woke up and found herself connected to an unconscious violinist. This obviously very closely resembles an unwanted pregnancy. It is assumed that the woman unplugging herself is permissible even though it would kill the violinist. Leading to her point of person?s right to life is not always stronger than another person?s right to have control over their own body. She then reconstructs the initial argument to state that it is morally impermissible to abort a fetus if it has the right to life and has the right to the mother?s body. The fetus has the right to life but only has the right to a ...
Thomson’s argument is presented in three components. The first section deals with the now famous violinist thought experiment. This experiment presents a situation in which you wake up one morning and discover you have been kidnapped and hooked up to an ailing violinist so that his body would have the use of your kidneys for the next nine months. The intuitive and instinctive reaction to this situation is that you have no moral duty to remain hooked up to the violinist, and more, that he (or the people who kidnapped you) does not have the right to demand the use of your body for this period. From a deontological point of view, it can be seen that in a conflict between the right of life of the fetus and the right to bodily integrity of the mother, the mother’s rights will trump those of the fetus. Thomson distills this by saying “the right to life consists not in the right not to be killed, but rather in the right not to be killed unjustly”.
In such positions, the resolution to terminate a pregnancy may be argued as the most ethical choice. The mother is also considered to have a reasonable level of ethical responsibility to the fetus, because she did not take enough precautions to ensure avoid conception (Cline, 2014). The mother’s ethical responsibility to the fetus may not be enough to deprive her of choice of abortion; it may be enough to ascertain when an abortion can be ethically selected (Cline, 2014). When a woman does not wish to carry an abortion to term, it will be unethical for law or any other person to force them to do so.... ...