An Argument That Abortion Is Wrong

Marquis then goes on to disassociate the ‘desire account’ as an influential element of his debate. It is pro-choice belief that takes into account it is someone’s desire to keep living that makes it wrong to kill a person as it interferes with their direct wishes. Once again when relating this view to abortion there is an obvious logical flaw. A fetus does not have the capability to be self aware let alone able to express a desire for the continuation of its life. Dose this make the action morally permissible? If so then Marquis elaborates this idea relating it individuals in circumstances where they either do not desire the continuation of their life or they are unable to express such a desire for instance in a coma. He concedes that it is still deemed wrong to kill them even though there would be no expressed desire for life at the time of the killing. Because the argument is broad it cannot be practically applied in the case of abortion.

Marquis argument is superior to others as he avoids casuistry terms such as “human life,” or “human being” and rests on the ethics of killing, which also apply to the fetus (Gedge & Waluchow, 2012, p224). Killing a fetus denies it the right to a valuable life just as adult human beings have. This deems abortion morally wrong.

During this article he will talk about anti-abortion and prochoice, meaning one is against abortion and the other one is okay with the choice you decide to go with. Anti-abortionist believe that everything is obvious and it shows how abortion is murder. Pro choicer believe that the truth is obvious as well but abortion is not a killing. Each of these groups will claim that their reasoning behind aborting or not will either be right or wrong depending in what group you seem to represent. In the article, Marquis wrote that anti-abortionist will claim that their information supported will be morally correct because of how wrong it is to take a baby’s life. As for the pro choicer, they will claim that it is accepted by the moral values and on how it is not wrong to take a human life. By trying to correct the problems of decision making it can still lead to other problems. The anit-abortionist will try to get rid of the problem by reconciling the wrongs of killing a human. After this it can lead to “It is always prima facie seriously wrong to end a human being” (p.253). This advantage can be a bit harder to reach because it is stated in this article that a fetus is a human and alive, but it still doesn’t mean that that the fetus

Judith Jarvis Thomson and Don Marquis both have different views on abortion. Thomson believes that in some cases, abortion is morally permissible, due to the life of the mother. Marquis believes that abortion is almost always morally impermissible, except in extreme circumstances, because the fetus has a future life. I will simply evaluate each of the authors reasoning’s that defend their belief, and give my argument for why I believe Judith Thomson’s essay is more convincing.

Marquis approaches his argument by considering those already put forth by anti-abortionist and pro-choice alike. He points out that both points of view focus on the status of the fetus; in particular they seek to establish whether or not a fetus is a person. He reasons that when paralleled, these arguments produce a sort of “standoff” that ultimately become more complicated and trivial (556). Looking for biological and/or physiological features to determine when a being is is a true “person” is morally irrelevant, and thus cannot

Marquis’ argument puts forward the claim that most deliberate abortions are immoral, and this is because the loss of one’s future “inflicts…the greatest possible [loss] on the victim” (SG 168). This is because the deprivation of one’s future reduces the inherent value of any possible future pleasure, experiences and activities (SG 169). This account addresses flaws associated

He might argue that though the child will suffer, he still has a potential future in which he formulate goals, and have experiences and projects. However, we must note that during his argument, Marquis says "If the patient's future is intolerable...we want our account to allow killing the patient" and that "it is the value of the patient's future which is doing the work in rendering the morality of killing the patient intelligible" (561). Obviously, a quandary arises. Does the fetus in our example have a future that is less valuable than that of a normal one? Can we justify aborting this fetus, because although he will be rational and most likely capable of having experiences, the scope of his suffering will be exceedingly great? Are we in any sort of position to prescribe the value of someone else's future without knowing exactly how it will play out? So while it is plausible that Marquis would still argue from an anti-abortionist stance due to its potential future, this decision will very probably not sit well with the parents who have to watch their child suffer throughout his shortened life. This is one ambiguity that exists in Marquis' argument that has no easy answer, and is worth noting.

Lastly, Marquis offers an analogy, the analogy with animals. He goes to show that humans are not the only living things that can suffer. That the suffering of non-human animals is wrong, and thus inflicting pain, whether it is towards a person or non-person is wrong. To deprive someone of a future value is a misfortune no matter whom the deprivation in inflicted on. This analogous argument goes to show that abortion is wrong by taking the same form of this argument for that causing pain and suffering to non-human animals is wrong.

In his essay Why Abortion is Immoral Don Marquis attempts to argue that abortion is almost always wrong except for a few special circumstances such as when the life of the mother is being threatened by the pregnancy. In his thesis Marquis asserts that abortion is in the same moral category as killing an innocent adult human being and the ethics of abortion is solvable. The strongest argument that Marquis presents to defend his thesis is the claim that what makes killing wrong is the loss of the victim’s future. In this paper, I will argue that this argument fails because aborting a fetus is not in the same moral category as killing an innocent adult human being.

In the article, “Why Abortion Is Immoral”, Don Marquis begins his discussion by arguing that standard arguments or standard explanations for and against abortion are rather similar and fairly unsophisticated. He states that the debate has become “intractable.” In the sense that the two sides of the issue have become a dug-in and no one is willing to listen to the other side at this point meaning that it is an entrenched opinion. He argues that we need a fresh start to the issue a better way to think about wrongful killing, in the philosophical literature is something debated that whether wrongful killing such as murder is bad because of the effect on the murderer or the effect on the society or the effect on the victim.

The next minor claim Willis presents is that the life of an unborn child is less valuable than that of a woman who already has a history and has experienced life. According to Willis, a woman has more worth because she has “feelings, self-consciousness, a history, social ties” (2005, p. 515). By having to carry a baby, all of these important parts of her life are in jeopardy of being harmed (Willis, 2005). The concern Willis expresses for a woman’s life changing

In Judith Jarvis Thompson’s article “A Defense of Abortion” she explores the different arguments against abortion presented by Pro –Life activists, and then attempts to refute these notions using different analogies or made up “for instances” to help argue her point that women do have the right to get an abortion. She explains why abortion is morally permissible using different circumstances of becoming pregnant, such as rape or unplanned pregnancy.

The right to life is the most basic and important right that we have. In the past two hundred years, over one million Americans have died for their country. Monuments have been built and speeches have been delivered, honoring these American heroes. America is now engaged in a war where there are no heroes, no monuments or tributes - only victims. Our society has declared war on its most helpless members - our unborn children. Since that war was declared on January 22, 1973, there have been over 35 million deaths.

The issue with laws against abortion is that they are based on the individual's morality and religion, but laws are not meant to appease one’s conscious, they are meant to uphold the rights of man. Every woman and man under the United States Constitution is granted civil liberties and when President Trump delivered his Executive order, it breached people’s civil liberties by denying them access to healthcare. Whether abortion is morally correct, is up for debate, but a government should not be able to ban or defund such means for a woman to uphold her own civil liberties. When any President reinstates the “Mexico City Policy,” he forces health providers to fire staff, reduce their services, or close their entire clinics. Prohibiting abortion

A person they’ve never even met before? Out of self-defense the reader has every right to detach themselves from the violinist because they have no obligation to him, they were forced into the situation without consent in the first place. So, if birthing a child would be of some detriment to a woman, as an act of self-defense, would abortion not be a viable option? Marquis FLO theory would suggest otherwise. Simply because a fetus will have a brighter future than the mothers, justifies why murder is immoral. But I must ask, if a mother plans an abortion because, either her body is incapable of giving birth without serious detriments to her health, or for financial reasons, what kind of life would that child live? Would a bright future include one without the guidance of a mother because she died during childbirth? Or would it consist of hopping from foster home to foster home because they have no permanent family to call their own? In America alone there are approximately 400,000 children without a permanent home, on the premise that their future ‘might’ be great? The FLO Marquis describes seems to be a rather brutal outlook upon the value of human life. The odds of an orphan finding a suitable and safe home with a family that can care for them is slim, so why is it still immoral to abort the child to prevent a fetus from a life of destitute if we are certain that the life of the mother will remain prosperous without the child, would there be more minimal value worth more