In opposition Marquis take the side in his article “Why abortion is immoral” that abortion is morally impermissible. To begin his argument Marquis makes the assumption that it is typically wrong to murder an adult human being. He then poses the question, “What makes it wrong to kill”? What makes it wrong to kill is the loss of one’s life, which deprive one of experiences, activities, and projects that would have made one’s future. The same future infants and fetuses have. Therefore, making is wrong to kill them as it is to kill and adult. This conclusion is the bulk of his argument. He then goes on to consider various objections to his view. The first objection is that fetuses cannot themselves value their own futures, their futures are thereby not valuable to …show more content…
Fetuses are not capable of this; therefore, they cannot have a right to life. He argues that these two objections have a similar flaw, which is that just because a being does not currently value or desire something, it does not make that thing invaluable to, or undesirable. His third objection takes contraception into consideration. If Marquis’ theory is right that makes contraception immoral. He then argues that nothing is wrong with contraception because it doesn’t deprive a human of its future of value.
While Marquis does makes a strong argument Thomson's argument is more persuasive. Take into consideration the concept that the embryo might not be considered a human at conception. This is where Marquis' argument falls apart. To support the conclusion that an embryo isn’t a human at conception Thomson uses an oak tree analogy. She quotes that "Similar things might be said about the development of an acorn into an oak tree, and it does not follow that acorns are oak trees, or that we had better say they are". Marquis fails to even discuss this idea about abortion. Another problem in Marquis' argument is that he relies on the
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.
In disagreement many people say that one person's right to life always outweighs another person's right to autonomy. However Thomson's argument makes a very interesting unwanted pregnancies resulting in permissible abortions. To counteract her claims I'm going to use a hypothetical situation as she did. Let's say a mother gives birth to a set of conjoined twins. The twins grow up having a somewhat troublesome life considering the fact that neither one has the opportunity to achieve autonomy. Once they get older, lets say age 18, twin A obtains the information that twin B's survival depends on the use of twin A's vital organ's. However twin A would survive if twin B was too be separated from him thus granting twin A his right to autonomy. It seems that it is obvious that it not permissible for twin A to kill twin B. The following argument shows a more concrete view of the situation. It is morally impermissible for twin A to kill twin B if he has the right to life and the right to twin A's body. Twin B does have a right to life. Twin B prima facie has
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.
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
In his essay "Why Abortion is Immoral," Don Marquis argues against the morality of abortion on the premise that the value of a fetus' future is so great that it is immoral to take that potential future away from it. Essentially, he contends, abortion is tantamount to murder: killing an individual is prima facie wrong because the loss of the goods of one's future is the worst loss a human can suffer. He calls this potential future a "future-like-ours," which is the basis for his contentions. In the next few pages I will delineate the general progression of his argument, and later, will evaluate the plausibility of said argument. Though Marquis makes both logical and compelling claims, there are
Thomson’s argument, “A Defense on Abortion,” is a piece written to point out the issues in many arguments made against abortion. She points out specific issues in arguments made, for example, about life beginning at conception and if that truly matters as an argument against abortion. Thomson uses multiple analogies when making her points against the arguments made against abortion. These analogies are used to show that the arguments made do not really make sense in saying it is immoral to have an abortion. These analogies do not work in all cases, and sometimes they only work in very atypical cases, but still make a strong argument. There are also objections made to Thomson’s argument, which she then replies to, which makes her argument even stronger. Her replies to these arguments are very strong, saying biology does not always equate responsibility, and that reasonable precaution is an important factor in the morality of abortion. There are some major issues in her responses to these objections.
Now on a different note, Thomson's main argument is set out to undermine the anti-abortionist argument. The anti-abortionist argument states: Every person has a right to life, the fetus is a person and hence has a right to life. The mother has the right to control her own body, but the fetuses' right to life is stronger than her right to control her body. Therefore, abortion is wrong. How Thomson goes about this is through analogies, and her main argument is through her violinist argument. Thomson asks you imagine that you find yourself hooked up to a famous unconscious violinist. If he can't use your kidneys for nine months, he'll die.
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.
Marquis begins his article by exploiting the fallacies of both the pro-choice and anti-abortion standard arguments. He states that anti-abortionist claims are often too broad while the pro-choice claims are often too narrow. The issue of ambiguity also arises on both sides of the argument. The anti-abortionist position becomes ambiguous if the wrongness of killing is based on a biological trait. Marquis explains that the color of ones skin, in the anti-abortionist view, is not a reason to not kill, whereas the trait of being a human being which consists of having 23 pair of chromosomes, would make it immoral to kill. Furthermore, pro-choice arguments are also ambiguous in that it is not clear what is considered a ‘person’ using psychological criteria. According to Joel Feinberg, a person is a conscious being with a sense of self and the ability to make rational decisions, set goals, and is in control of their own
In chapter seven, “the Value of a Future Life Approaching”, (p.512) philosopher Don Marquis talks about how abortion steals the fundamental goods from one self like the experiences and enjoyments. He states, “the loss to the victim of the value of its futures has obvious consequences for the ethics in abortions,” meaning that is morally wrong to kill the unborn because it is already a person with a future and by with killing it it is not letting it reach its full potential. Religious backgrounds are also against abortion because in the Christian community the fetus is considered a person right when it starts forming. The fetus is a human being created by God and no human being has the right to take a life because they are not God. It is said that God is the only one to take away life because he is the one who to create it and stealing another’s’ life is going against God. In the Catholic and Christian community it is one of the ten commandments that one shalt not kill and because the fetus is now a small human being it is murder and a sin to take its life.
The author does indeed make exceptions for cases where an abortion wouldn’t be immoral. Although, in the introduction to his argument, he says they are rare. Marquis bases his entire argument on the basis that a fetus has the same inherent moral value as that of an adult human. Therefore, the thought that any singular abortion is immoral is overwhelming. He goes on to say that there could be cases where this supposition could be overridden but the reasoning would have to prove greater than a woman’s right to privacy (the ruling in Roe v. Wade).
The big issue with abortion is the prima facie reaction it gives people when they first hear about it. When people hear the word abortion they quickly make an over the top judgment about it being right or wrong. In the reading by Marquis this is the main