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 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 can 't 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. Marquis takes a different approach to the topic of abortion than most other people, he doesn 't try to establish that the fetus is a person, but instead tries to establish a reason for why killing us is wrong, and show that the reason also applies to fetuses; and thus
However, the future-like-ours argument has a lot of trouble dealing with cases where killing the subject would be obviously wrong. For example, imagine there 's a person who will die naturally in the next moment; they have no future. Or a person who doesn 't currently, and never will value their future. Suppose you know those facts and those people are in front of you. It seems that the future-like-ours argument would come to the conclusion that it wouldn 't be at all morally wrong to kill those people because they either don 't have a future, or they will never come to find value in their future. This obviously doesn 't seem like the right conclusion, as common sense should tell us it would be extremely wrong to kill those people. This shows that the future-like-ours argument is flawed, and consequently so is Marquis ' argument against
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:
Thirdly, Marquis concludes from the last two premises and says that if you kill a fetus then it is prima facie seriously morally wrong of you. By killing off a human being’s potential values, it is cruel, especially to children because they are defenseless. Then, Marquis asserts that if fetuses and adults are in the same moral categories then the fetus can only be aborted if there is a serious moral concern. In the beginning, Marquis proclaims that there are special cases like rape and the mom’s life being threatened that would override the “moral wrongness” of abortion.
In her essay, “A Defense of Abortion,” Judith Jarvis Thompson outlines the most common arguments that people defend, and explains her views regarding each of these. She shares numerous examples and situations that she believes will support her views. One of her most prominent arguments is that of whether or not a fetus has moral standing as a “person.” She highlights the so called “battle” between an innocent life, the fetus, and the bodily rights of the mother. Within this argument, Judith outlines for us several situations which can provide people with a different outlook regarding abortion. Throughout Judith’s essay, she does not truly give a clear stance, but rather allows her readers to choose for themselves.
Abortions have been performed for thousands of years. In the 1800s abortions began to be outlawed. The reasons for anti-abortion laws varied for each state. Some people did not want the world to be dominated by newly arrived immigrants. Abortion in the 1800s were very unsafe due to the fact that the doctors had a limited educations and hospitals were not common. The outlawing of abortions from 1880 to 1973 led to many woman attempting illgeal abortions. (add author). Almost two hundred women died from attempting illegal abortions in 1965. Between two hundred thousand and one million illegal abortions were given each year. In states where local laws restrict the availability of abortion, women tend to have the lowest level of education and income. Additionally, in those states, less money goes toawrds education, welfare, fostercare programs, and adoption services. (Anderson, 5).
In my previous essay, I argued that abortion is immoral, but can be countered against depending on the person and the situation given. My view has now changed to where abortion is morally permissible under certain circumstances. This change of views occurred after reading Warren, Thomson, and Marquis' arguments throughout the course. Coming from a family and culture that shames a person who favors abortion, I solely believed abortion was immoral until taking this class. I wanted to clarify that my view on abortion is morally permissible if the pregnancy was affecting the mother’s wellbeing, financial stability, or if she does not feel prepared or lacks education to care for a child.
Marquis’s overall argument is abortion is seriously morally wrong because it involves killing. He states this is wrong because it robs a human of a natural property, which is a “future like ours,” or a FLO. It “deprives one of all experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted one’s future.” Killing someone is wrong because it inflicts a great loss on the victim. He states describing this as a loss of life can be misleading because a change in a biological state does not make killing wrong, it is the effect of the killing, making one lose all of the experiences which would otherwise have been possible. The activities are valuable and are the means to something else, like a potential life, which would make ...
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.
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.
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
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.
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.