In this paper I will discuss Don Marquis’s essay “Why Abortion is Immoral” and Judith Jarvis Thomson’s objections to Marquis’ argument against abortion.
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:
P1) If it is immoral to kill an adult human because you discontinue their ability to experience a future, then abortion is immoral.
P2) It is immoral to kill an adult human because you discontinue their ability to experience a future.
C) Abortion is immoral.
Since Marquis’s conclusion that abortion is immoral is guaranteed by the truth of preceding premises the structure of
…show more content…
Marquis’ argues that like adult humans, fetuses have the ability to experience a future and by preventing them from experiencing that future through abortion is the same as killing an adult human.
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).
Though Marquis does provide a logical argument against abortion it is now without its
…show more content…
Thomson provides the example of being hooked up for nine months to provide dialysis to an ailing violinist to expose how a fetus’s right to life does not supersede a mother’s right to make medical decisions about her body (48-49). I find that this thought experiment especially helpful in understanding how even though a fetus does have a right to life, because the continuation of their life hinges on the consent of their mother to use her body, it falls to the mother to choose whether or not to allow the fetus to develop to term.
Another instance of how someone’s right to bodily autonomy can surpass the right to life can be understood when thinking about end of life scenarios. Marquis’s argument suggests it would be immoral for a doctor to take a comatose patient off life support, even if the patient previously arranged to be taken off life support. Following Marquis’s logic because a person in a vegetative state could theoretically wake up in the future, a doctor would be obligated to keep them on life support against their wishes. Additionally, as Marquis briefly mentions in his paper, people suffering from terminal illness must also be denied euthanasia (197). In find it troubling that Marquis seems to have arbitrarily decided that even adult human beings do not have the right to make medical decisions that would greatly lessen their suffering. Additionally, Marquis’s argument also suggests that committing suicide would not only be immoral,
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.
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.
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.
“A Defense of Abortion” is a philosophy paper by Judith Jarvis Thomson in which the author argues for abortion, using several analogies to illustrate her points. In a move that separates this paper from the bulk of others on the same topic, Thomson grants at the start of the paper that a fetus has the right to life. She then proceeds to argue that although a fetus has a right to life, that right does not trump a woman’s right to her body. She concludes that abortion is an acceptable choice in a variety of circumstances.
In this section I will explain Don Marquis’s arguments in the essay “Why abortion is wrong”. Marquis believes since killing a person, the effect of murder on the victim, will cause the victim loss one’s future life including experiences, enjoyments and other activities that are valuable for the person, hence it is morally wrong to kill an actual person. Based on
Don Marquis’s opposes Tooleys view. He argues that abortion is, except possibly in rare cases, seriously immoral, and that it should be placed in the same moral category as killing an innocent human being (Marquis, 1989 p. 183). His belief is that killing someone is wrong because the victim suffers the greatest loss one can suffer, the loss of life. This loss deprives one of all experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments that would have constituted as ones future (Marquis, 1989 p. 189). Marquis’s argument is summarised below;
Don Marquis, on the other side of the abortion debate begins his essay “Why abortion is immoral” through the frustration of little support being given to the thought. This essay was writen to show the falsified belief that an anti-abortion stance is nothing other than irrational religious dogma or a conclusion generated by a seriously confused philosophical argument. The argument is set forth throughout that abortion is, except in rare cases, seriously immoral. This essay sets forth the belief that abortion is in the same category as killing an innocent adult human being. this reading fails to provide any argument for the “hotly debated” abortion circumstances such as : abortion before implantation, abortion due to
An argument against the viewpoint of Marquis’s is in the situation where the mother's life is at risk when it comes to continuing the pregnancy. Marquis would argue that by getting an abortion you are murdering the fetus and taking away their chance at a future (Marquis, 184). Thomson would counter argue by saying that it is the mother's right to her body to decide between herself and her child’s life. This extreme situation in my opinion should be an exception and considered an extreme case to Marqus. But he would still argue that the fetus has just as much of a right to be saved because they have the absolute right to have what we have. Even if the mother’s life was at risk Marquis would still choose to continue the pregnancy based on the
Even though many argue a fetus is not yet a person, Marquis does not think it makes a difference at what stage a person is in life, that fetus will eventually be a person who will eventually live a life and to take that away before it even starts would be unethical.... ... middle of paper ... ... This idea, he argues, does not withstand the argument of suicide because it challenges his theory of having the desire to live.
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 this paper, my aim is to argue that Don Marquis ' claim that abortions are immoral is flawed due to the objection of contraception. Marquis ' argument is built around the idea that morality on killing a human being is not based on taking away the victim 's life but rather through taking away their valuable future. "The category that is morally central to this analysis is the category of having a valuable future like ours; it is not the category of personhood"( Marquis, 192). He elaborates on this notion by reasoning that, except in extreme circumstances, killing an adult human is morally wrong because "killing inflicts (one of) the greatest possible losses on the victim...The change in biological state does not by itself make killing wrong...[Death]
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.
Don Marquis upholds the fact of since abortion deprives the fetus of a future like ours therefore most abortion is morally wrong. He adheres in his article “abortion is, except possibly in rare cases, seriously immoral”, what he meant was that not all abortions are wrong. He did not discuss about the exception of “… abortion before implantation, abortion when the life of a woman is threatened by a pregnancy or abortion by rape”
In this essay, I will demonstrate how Mary Anne Warren uses this idea to build a solid foundation for her argument in favor of unfettered use of abortions. Similar to Mary Anne Warren, I believe that abortion should always remain legal because there is no stage in fetal development in which a fetus resembles a person. Warren does make the distinction that a fetus may resemble a human being because they have a full genetic code and potential to become a person, however, Warren defines a person as someone with the capacity for rational thought, therefore a fetus might resemble a human but doesn’t resemble a person. Warren, 11. While it is hotly contested, a fetus doesn’t have rational thought.
This assignment helped me grow to let me open up to listen to people who believe that abortion should be allowed, although I disagree. The strongest argument supporting why abortion is immoral is because an abortion takes away the endless possibilities of life from the fetus that can potentially become a person if left to grow to term. This argument is presented by Don Marqui, a moral philosopher and journalist, in his response to, “Why Abortion Is Immoral” (88). In standard form, his argument could be expressed as: 1. If a fetus gets aborted, it takes away the possibilities and experiences that a potential person could have had.