Marquis Vs. Marquis: The Morality Of Abortion

799 Words2 Pages

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,

Open Document