Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Moral implications of abortion
Moral implications of abortion
John mill view on abortion
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Moral implications of abortion
Marquis stresses the concept that abortion is equal to that of killing a fully adult human. He illustrates that because of the mindset that to abort a fetus, except in special scenarios, is a serious moral wrong. Marquis introduces the idea of the morality of abortion with identifying that typical arguments by anti-abortionists and pro-choice believers are weak and stubborn. Marquis explains that anti-abortionists praise the notion that fetuses exhibit adult behaviors, and the other hand, pro-choice argues that fetuses lack sorts of features that are necessary to be considered for insertion in moral society. (Insert Source Here) Both sides putting immense effort to argue in favor of an opinion that will clarify killing or murder so that It …show more content…
The plan would be to recognize why murdering an adult human is morally wrong, and to try and adapt it to the argument of abortion. The plan behind this reasoning, is that if it connects with abortion, then there will be some sort of evidence to support that abortion is presumptively immoral. Marquis believes that what killing does most effectively is deprive the victim of something valuable or irreplaceable. Meaning that it takes away any chance of anything that the victim would have valued in the future before his/her demise. Among the everything” lost would be goals, life achievements, life projects, relationships and of course other special small things connected to the person. Killing is wrong in many ways and instances, but marquis stresses that one of its biggest wrongs is the fact that it takes away all the valuable experiences. With the knowledge that destroying our values through murder is one of the worst crimes, for it deprives the victim of so much. It aligns up well with views that the terminally ill have toward their future deaths. This strategy is not specifically meant to aimlessly make the killing of a human of distinct moral significance. In addition, Marquis believes that this strategy/theory can change plausible verdicts in several ethical issues. This strategy per Marquis should even aid in the permission of euthanasia and can account for the incorrect use of …show more content…
Whether it be Contraception and abstinence deprive a possible child of the valuable future it would have otherwise had. Whether killing is bad depends on how much life one has left (it’s ok to kill a 90 year old, etc.), how good one’s life is, and so on. It is too vague what counts as valuable future. (Insert source here) Firstly, Marquis considers competing arguments that attempt to defend murder and to prevail abortion as not presumptively incorrect. The first account dictates that because a fetus may not value their own goals and achievements in their future, that their future are of no value. The second argument ride a similar path, it has it that a being may not be given a right to life unless it gives a fight or will to continue its existence. Since fetuses do not value in this way, the second account believes they do not deserve a right to life. However, Marquis believes that ether of these sides has enough basis to be followed. Just because a being does not fully understand or currently have value/ desire, it does not mean that the being is not valuable or desirable for. Finally, Marquis considers the objection of contraception, using pills such as ”morning after” pills, birth control, or other ways of preventing pregnancy. (Insert Source Here) If marquis theory were to be considered true, then contraception would be labeled as immoral. But, knowing that contraception is not fully considered to be immoral,
...ument irrelevant in his argument. I am personally pro- life and do not agree with abortion unless a women was raped and there were extenuating circumstances if the mother’s life was threatened. Marquis FLO argument isn’t valid enough to conduce to his entire theory. Marquis cannot see into the future and determine if a fetus will have a great future. If the pregnancy goes well and the fetus is born, then yes they are entitled to a future, but whether it will be like “ours” is unpredictable making Marquis point of FLO an invalid argument. Abortion is depriving a fetus of a future life in general. If Marquis would have said this instead I would be more willing to agree with his theory. Abortion is morally impermissible because at the end of the day, it is murder. A fetus will grow to be a human with organs and a brain and have some type of future whether good or bad.
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:
The topic of my paper is abortion. In Judith Jarvis Thomson's paper, “A Defense of Abortion,” she presented a typical anti-abortion argument and tried to prove it false. I believe there is good reason to agree that the argument is sound and Thompson's criticisms of it are false.
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.
Famous author Dr. Seuss states that a “person is a person no matter how small.”
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
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.
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...
Abortion may be one of the most controversial topics in America today. Abortion is defined as “the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus” (cite dictionary). There are really only two sides on people’s opinion on abortion; pro-life which means abortion should be outlawed and pro-choice which means a woman should be able to decide whether she wants to keep her baby. Thousands of protests and riots have begun due to the fact pro-life activists believe abortion should become illegal. Both sides bring valid points to support their decision that could sway any person’s thoughts. The Roe v. Wade law has allowed abortion to be legal in the U.S since 1973 (Chittom & Newton, 2015). The law “gives women total control over first trimester abortions and grants state legislative control over second and third trimester abortions” (Chittom & Newton, 2015). Ever since the law was put in place, millions of people have tried to overturn it and still
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
When it comes to abortion there is always much hostility when discussing the topic. Abortion is the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy. This procedure often done when 28 weeks pregnant. Many people consider abortion to be cruel and an act of murder. Although some will advocate for abortions, those who have religious beliefs will say that no one but God has the right to take someone’s life. Those who support abortion do not consider an unborn child a human that should be protected. The issue of abortion is very difficult when determining if it’s right or wrong. Therefore, I am going to give my philosophical argument from the “pro-life” perspective.
In the Judith Jarvis Thomson’s paper, “A Defense of Abortion”, the author argues that even though the fetus has a right to life, there are morally permissible reasons to have an abortion. Of course there are impermissible reasons to have an abortion, but she points out her reasoning why an abortion would be morally permissible. She believes that a woman should have control of her body and what is inside of her body. A person and a fetus’ right to life have a strong role in whether an abortion would be okay. Thomson continuously uses the story of a violinist to get the reader to understand her point of view.
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.
According to Judith Thomson in her book “A Defense of Abortion”, a human embryo is a person who has a right to life. But, just because the human fetus has the right to life does not mean that the mother will be forced to carry it (Thomson, 48). Naturally, abortion may be seen as the deliberate termination of a pregnancy before the fetal viability. Though people have understood this, the topic of abortion has remained a controversial issue in the world. Individuals are divided into “Pro-choice” and “Pro-life” debaters depending on their opinion on the morality of the action. "Pro-life," the non-consequentialist side, is the belief that abortion is wrong, generally because it equates to killing. "Pro-choice," the consequentialist view, however,
Abortion “is an issue that raises questions about life and death, about what a person is and when one becomes a person, about the meaning of life, about the rights of women, and about the duties of men”(Velasquez 485). Abortion is an unresolved ethical issue that has been in doubt for many years because one can argue that you are killing an innocent person/fetus but many argue that is not person because they don’t have a conscious or the characteristics that defines a “person”. John Stuart Mill in a way justifies abortion, Mill is known to be openly speak about women’s rights and about human rights. Although, it might be immortal to end someone’s life one might argued that the individual has the right to choose and have the option. But in