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,
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
Don Marquis argument is more convincing than Mary Anne Warren’s because the argument of the wrongness of killing as it destroys the opportunity of a valuable future, always overcomes the defense of a woman’s autonomy, as the woman who’s life is not threatened by pregnancy has various other morally feasible options than abortion. This paper will first provide an exposition of Marquis argument and Warren’s argument, and secondly an explanation of why Marquis argument is more persuasive than Warren’s.
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 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.
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.
A considerable difference is that Marquis’ beliefs are associated with the uncertainty of the future whereas Tooley’s beliefs are invested in the present. Tooley claims that because a fetus isn 't a fully capable person, a fetus is not afforded a merit in a decision such an abortion. Tooley’s argument is based solely on what the fetus is capable of before birth. Marquis’ argument is based on potential following birth. Marquis holds the value of a human future to a high regard. Marquis makes a profound point when he compares the refusal to kill suicidal teens to the anti-abortion position. He emphasizes that the reasoning for not killing suicidal teens is solely because the teen could possibly posses “the desire at some future time to live.” Thus, simply because one is not capable of desiring life does not mean one is not worthy of
The conservative argument asserts that every person has a right to life. The foetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what happens in and to her body. But surely a person’s right to life is stronger than the mother’s right to decide what shall happen to her body, and so outweigh it. So the foetus may not be killed and an abortion may not be performed (Thomson, 1971)
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
In his second premise Marquis expands on the idea that the killing of an adult human is a serious moral wrong because by killing them you deprive them of future experiences. He believes that by killing someone you cause “the greatest possible losses on the victim” and supports this idea with the example of terminally ill patients who feel their they are being robbed because their premature death prevents them from enjoying their future (190). Additionally, Marquis challenges the idea that killing someone simply because they are biologically human with the example of intelligent aliens (191).
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...
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 it would override the “moral wrongness” of abortion. So if the premises that Marquis stated above are all true then we ought to accept his conclusion. The first premise expresses that if you kill someone then one is taking away from his or her future like ours. Marquis statement on the first premise is one we ought to accept because obviously if the person is dead they cannot have a future like ours. The
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,
The murder of innocents or, a woman’s right to choose; the Pro-Life/ Pro-Choice Debate, Which side are you on? The issue of abortion has been a topic of interest not only in the medical world but also in the political and religious worlds as well. The pro-life argument states that at conception the fetus is a baby and terminating it is taking a life. The pro-choice argument states that the unborn fetus, not baby, is just a blob of tissue and your terminating a pregnancy not a child. Both sides of the argument will be discussed in this essay along with the views of the church, politicians, women who have had abortion, and even a women who use to worked for Planned Parenthood.
Abortion is one of America’s most controversial subjects. The participants in this debate have fixed beliefs on the matter at hand. On one side of the debate are people who believe in pro- choice. They argue that choice of a woman is more important than an unborn fetus. They point out that an unborn child is not on the same level of importance as the mother. Also, the pro-life group declares that choice is the sole purpose behind their argument. They believe that if a woman cannot chose to abolish a pregnancy, then she looses one of her basic human rights. The other side of the debate is the pro-life group. Their main concern is that the fetus is a person; therefore, having the same human rights as the mother. As a result, when states pass laws that enable abortions, these states are legalizing murder. When considering an individual’s ethics and values, killing is morally wrong. Therefore, the termination of unborn children is wrong, as well. Abortion, the unethical expulsion of an embryo or fetus, in order to purposely end a pregnancy, should be forbidden because human life begins at conception, economics is not a justification for abortion, and an unwanted child does not justify abortion.
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.