Does Abortion Deserve To Die?

Don Marquis agrees with anti-abortionists that abortion is morally wrong, but finds that they are not making the right arguments to justify this. There is much debate over what comprises a human being or when a fetus becomes a person, and if only a human life is of great value, so I will use the general term “X” to present Marquis’s overall argument. If X has a future like ours which has great value, then depriving X of that future is immoral. X has a future like ours, thereby making it immoral to kill X. Obviously, this is a broad argument defending the anti-abortionist viewpoint. In this case, X is a fetus, so the argument becomes much more specific. If a fetus has a future like ours which has great value, depriving a fetus of this future is morally wrong. A fetus has a future like ours, so killing the fetus is morally wrong.

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

To put it simply, an abortion is defined as, the intentional termination of a pregnancy most often preformed before the third trimester (within weeks 1-28). The controversy over abortions usually stems from the difficulty between individuals to agree on a set of conditions that would constitute ones’ decision, to abort as just. This issue is examined by many philosophers, particularly, Judith Thomson and Don Marquis. Both philosopher’s views loosely encompass the complex underlying beliefs of those who stand behind the “pro-life” and “pro-choice” arguments. Tomson and Marquis demonstrate the very distinctively different perspectives one could take on the issue. Don Marquis suggests that fetuses, being persons, possess the right to a “future like ours” and that it would be wrong to intentionally impede on “the life that I would have lived if I had lived out my natural lifespan” except for in “rare circumstances”. While, Tomson asserts that not all abortions are morally wrong, nor do they “violate the victim’s right to life”, and by having one that is in no way indicative that a fetus’s rights have been violated. Despite the fact that both philosophers present valid positions, and outline their key differences, Tomson goes far beyond Marquis’ efforts by illustrating that the way in which we view abortions ought to be redefined in order for one to maintain a clear perspective.

Marquis concludes that abortion deprives a fetus of its potential life and ultimately results in the greatest loss one can comprehend: life (1989). It is important to note that there are many arguments regarding what constitutes a person, or when in development a fetus attains personhood; however, in Deb’s case we will consider the 16-week-old fetus in the drama to be a person.

While parts of both may be true, both cannot stand side by side as completely true when discussing abortion. As they stand today, fetus rights and female rights are incompatible in arena of abortion. Even the “other side” agrees that the two cannot stand shoulder to shoulder. In a chapter entitled “Abortion Does Not Violate Human Rights”, Christian Beenfeldt quotes Brian McKinely when claiming that female rights have a higher precedence than fetus rights: “It’s actually quite simple. You cannot have two entities with equal rights occupying one body. One will automatically have veto power over the other.” So one question remains, which more important, fetus rights or female rights? The winner of this question can be decided by one simple factor: is the fetus to be considered a true, living human being at the point of conception, or does true human life not begin until after birth? A clarification should be made here, however. In this paper it will be assumed that everyone involved in this debate considers a newborn child to be a human being. That is, at the moment of birth, a child either becomes a human being or continues to be a human being; regardless of the fetus’s life state before birth, it will be assumed that all agree that birth “confirms”, so to speak, the life and human existence of the newborn.

Don Marquis starts off his essay stating that most anti-abortion arguments are often thought of as of “irrational religious dogma or a conclusion generated by seriously confused philosophical argument.” (Marquis, p 183). He goes on to say that his essay will show abortion is seriously immoral and in the same moral category as killing an innocent adult human. Marquis then deconstructs typical arguments made both for and against abortion. He disagrees with the common arguments made by the anti-abortionist because the moral principles they use are often too broad in scope. Marquis draws parallels between the typical anti-abortionist arguments and the standard pro-choice arguments. For example, he notes the anti-abortionist will often make the claim that life is present at conception or the fetus looks like a baby and therefore it is a human being with a right to life. Regarding the pro-choice arguments Marquis notices similar arguments in the other direction. For example, the pro-choicer will claim the fetuses are not persons. Marquis notices there is too much ambiguity in the arguments of both sides. Marquis says that the moral claims made by each party do not do a good job touching the essence of the matter. Marquis then goes on to state that in order to understand why abortion is wrong we must first find out why it is wrong to kill us. He arrives at the conclusion that it is wrong to kill us because it deprives us our future. Marquis argues that since a standard fetus has a future just like a child or an adult

Abortion is highly controversial and there is quite the debate over the ethics of abortion. The question is does the fetus have the same rights as an adult, so that it has the same right to not be killed. There are many debates on whether or not a fetus is human. Those who believe that there is no life related to a fetus then they believe that it has no rights. On the flip side, others may argue that abortion is the killing of an innocent human life. The question, “When does life begin?” appears over and over again throughout these debates and within cultures.Thompson believes that the question of whether a fetus have the same rights as a human being is irrelevant. Even if the fetus had all the rights of an adult human being, it would still be permissible to abort it.

Based on the view that the fetus is already a small baby, some extreme anti-abortionists would maintain that abortion is impermissible even to save the mothers life. The rationale behind this view would be that the child is innocent, and killing the child would be active, on the other hand, letting the mother die would be passive. This introduces two new concepts, the first being the mother’s rights in competition to those of the fetus and the second being the question of innocence and how we would define this (Langley).

When faced with the choice of life or death, most people would choose to live. In fact, most would not want someone else making that decision for them. They would claim that as a living and independent entity it is solely their choice as to whether they continue to live or not. While this concept may seem fairly straightforward, there seems to be some great debate when it is applied to abortion. For many, they will maintain that the fetus has the right to life no matter the situation. There are some who will argue that abortion is morally permissible in specific circumstances and there are even those that will claim that abortion is always permissible. Why is there such a great divide? A major factor that plays a part in this is whether abortion involves more than one life. Because determining the beginning point of life is such a complex and emotional debate, there will be the same allowance in this paper as there was in Judith Jarvis Thomson’s “A Defense of Abortion”. As she eloquently put it “I propose then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception” (p. 721). This will allow for a look into the moral debate of abortion from a more grounded stage. As discussed early in Thomson’s paper, most of the debate on abortion rests on whether the fetus is alive or not. Whereas the focus should be on the many other aspects of pregnancies that may lead to a mother wanting an abortion.

Does abortion deserve to be legal? Is it deserved to be illegal? How would the law affect a country; if not, the whole world? Some people believe it should be illegal because of religion and their own country’s infrastructure. Some people do not see it as being a wrong thing. It’s tremendous how many countries rely on abortion making the population growth decrease and others ban it to increase growth. Yet, my opinion is it not being something worth wasting. There is a life being lost and that is why I think of it becoming and then staying illegal from many countries on this earth. Therefore, if the law for abortion is allowed in any country then we’ll see a tremendous crisis over abortion happening not only in one but all over the world.

The following essay will examine the morality of abortion with specific reference to the writings of Don Marquis, Judith Jarvis Thompson, Peter Singer and Mary Anne Warren. I will begin by assessing the strength of the argument provided by Marquis which claims that abortion is impermissible because it deprives a being of a potential “future like ours,” and then go on to consider the writings of Singer, Thomson and Warren to both refute Marquis claims and support my assertion that abortion is morally permissible primarily because of the threat to the freedom and bodily autonomy of women extending the right to life to a foetus in utero would pose.

Abortion is always argued with different cases and play a main role in medical ethics (blackwell.,p291).It is evidently reasonable for some to argue that in moral situation, abortion is a murder and it should be illegal, while others may claim that abortion is woman’s right when concerning on autonomy ( The abortion debate in Australia). Opponents of making abortion legal claim that abortion is a kind of murder on extend of moral situation. It is always regarded as a sin to kill a person who is no aggressor in most moral communities (new ethics 1). Fetus is a biologically human as it is not just a part of the mothers, such as a lung or a kidney. On the contrary, it is obvious that fetus is human due to he or she has genetic code of human and human parents as well (abortion myth p5). Moreover, it has potentiality to be a person with primary moral worth (text book p210-211). As Gillion (new ethics) pointed out, every person has his right to life, especially he is not an aggressor. This point is also been pointed by (Rebecca and john,Blackwell p204), “embryos has a right to life” .The fetus is innocent and

Abortion is an abomination and a serious confliction in civilization today. This heated topic is one inflicted upon by many different thought processes, morals, and religions, making it extremely controversial, but most do not realize one’s life is truly at stake. Abortion signifies revoking someone the opportunity of life, for the sole reason that things are not in our favor (Ladock). Ladock states the most important factor of abortion: human life is involved and killing it would be a crime. The innocent child in the womb is called innocent for a reason, and taking away the life of someone without their permission is cruelty and unjust. Just because a parent may not be prepared to have the child, does not mean they should be

The argument of abortion is largely circumstanced around whether or not a fetus should be considered as a human person and, if indeed it is, when exactly in the stages of development can a person agree with the aforementioned statement. Most pro-life supporters firmly believe that a fetus is a human at the instance of conception and use this as a sole basis to argue that abortion is therefore immoral. Judith Jarvis Thomson is not convinced that this basis is a sufficient defense and approaches the argument by modifying a generic view on abortion. In the article, "A Defense of Abortion," Thomson makes the assumption that a fetus is, in fact, a human person upon conception and has a right to life. She then claims that even if this notion is

From 1973 to 2003 around 1 million abortions have been performed in the U.S alone and after the Roe vs. Wade case was found in favor in Roe, which has led to a large controversy over whether or not an abortion kills a person. Today I will not argue over which side is right or wrong, but show you the facts and ethics of an abortion, and leave you the listener to choose whether or not to believe and act upon these truths. First, the argument over abortion is not about women's right. Many people associate abortion with women's right but this is not the case. The argument for or against abortion lies in whether or not an abortion murders a person. Now with that context set, we must now look to see first whether something is being killed and the answer is yes. Any Biomedical scientist will tell you that an unborn baby's cell is different than that of her mother therefore if an unborn baby were part of her mother the cells of the baby would match that of her mother. But it has been scientifically proven as a fact that an unborn baby is composed of entirely different cells than her mother. Furthermore this meaning that the baby is an entirely different organism. Also, we know something is being killed because the unborn baby has different cells consequently meaning an entirely different organism is killed during the abortion process. Now that we know that an unborn baby is not part of the mother and that something in the least is being killed. Now that it is settled that something