Don Marquis Why Abortion Is Immoral Summary

When he compiles his argument he begins by providing the argument for a ‘pro-choice’ approach which makes the assumption that a fetus is a being but one who's life is not ethically applicable and can be ended without moral consequence. This gives us an insight into the apparent symmetry between this set of ideals in contrast with the beliefs of the

In this paper I am going to critically evaluate “A Defense of Abortion” by Judith Thompson, a moral philosopher and metaphysician, who argues that is morally okay to abort a fetus even if the fetus is considered a person and contrast it to another moral philosopher and utilitarian, Peter Singer who deems her argument to be flawed.

One of the most frequently debated topics in bioethics is the morality of abortion, or the ending of a pregnancy without physically giving birth to an infant. Often times abortions are categorized into either spontaneous, a natural miscarriage; induced or intentional, which is premeditated and for any reason; or therapeutic, which albeit intentional, its sole purpose is to save the mother’s life. It seems however that moral conflicts on issue mainly arise when discussing induced abortions. In general, people universally agree it is morally wrong to kill an innocent person and in some people’s eyes induced abortions are the intentional killings of innocent persons, thus making them immoral. However not all individuals view fetuses as persons and consequentially argue it is not morally wrong to kill them.

The fetus has a valuable future, just as we consider children, the retarded or mentally ill to have valuable futures, thus killing a fetus is not morally permissible. Another pro-choice argument is that the fetus has no desire to live and consequently there is no wrongness in killing. Marquis criticizes this viewpoint, as society believes it is morally wrong to kill those who have no desire to live, and those who are unconscious or suicidal (Gedge & Waluchow, 2012, p220).

In “Why Abortion is Immoral”, Don Marquis offers his anti-abortion argument known as a “future like ours" (Marquis, 558). Marquis takes a step back from focusing on the complicated moral status of the fetus, and instead asks seemingly less controversial questions: what makes killing an innocent adult wrong, and what right we adult humans possess not to be killed? His answer serves as the first premise for his argument: killing is prima facie morally wrong because it deprives an individual of their future of value. His second premise is that killing a fetus, i.e. abortion, also deprives it a future of value, which he refers to as a “future like ours” (559). Marquis concludes that because fetuses possess the innate property that is sufficient to make killing adult human beings wrong, that killing fetuses is also wrong. Simply stated, abortions are prima facie immoral, for the same reason that killing an innocent adult is prima facie immoral (559)

This essay will look at Marquis’s “future like ours” argument and challenge the premises and implications of his conclusion. I will not be considering exceptional circumstances, such as rape or major health implications, as Marquis’ focus was on general deliberate abortions. I will argue that the ideas of personhood, future-directed preferences and bodily autonomy establish a great moral difference between killing an adult and killing a foetus. In disproving Marquis’s conclusion and his counter-examples to criticisms, I will draw upon utilitarian and rights-based theories.

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

The debate about abortion focuses on two issues; 1.) Whether the human fetus has the right to life, and, if so, 2.) Whether the rights of the mother override the rights of the fetus. The two ethicists who present strong arguments for their position, and who I am further going to discuss are that of Don Marquis and Judith Thomson. Marquis' "Future Like Ours" (FLO) theory represents his main argument, whereas, Thomson uses analogies to influence the reader of her point of view. Each argument contains strengths and weaknesses, and the point of this paper is to show you that Marquis presents a more sound argument against abortion than Thomson presents for it. An in depth overview of both arguments will be

In “A Defense of Abortion” by Judith Jarvis Thompson, Thompson works to argue that even if a human fetus is considered a person, abortion is still often morally permissible. This paper will work to explain Thompson’s positions on the different accounts of the right to life, and to provide an evaluation of them and explain why they are not plausible, specifically regarding three of the analogies on-which she based her entire argument: the violinist, the coat, and the case of Kitty Genovese, as well as to explore a logical counterargument and explain why it’s stance is impermissible.

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.

Deontologism is a school of rule-based ethics that determines whether or not an action is moral based on sets of principles or rules. These rules are fixed, and can include “it is wrong to kill” and “it is wrong to lie.” Don Marquis, who wrote “Why Abortion is Immoral” from a deontological perspective, argued that abortion is immoral, except in a few rare cases, and in order to determine why it is immoral, an account of why killing is wrong must be created. Marquis found that killing is wrong because of the dead’s loss of their future personal life. The potential for joy, great experiences, and happiness is too considerable to end prematurely. Though Marquis does not regard abortion to be the same as premature death, he regards it as causing

Abortion is a major issue that has lead to many different opinions, ideas, and various debates. Proponents for abortion often use the fact that a fetus is not a moral person to justify their position, whereas those who are against the issue often claim that a fetus is a moral person and should deserve every right a moral person has, including the right to live. Judith Jarvis Thomson, however, takes an entirely different approach. In her article “A Defense of Abortion” Thomson argues that even if a fetus is considered to be a human being does not automatically ensure it the right to live. Thomson’s position leads to many oppositions and critiques. Foot’s article, for example, “ Killing versus Letting Die” attempts to point out the flaws in Thomson’s argument. Foot claims that a fetus’ status must be considered when addressing the issue of abortion and that Thomson’s argument is invalid. Although Thomson’s argument may seem valid at first, Foot does offer considerable evidence critiquing the validity of Thomson’s argument.

The pro-life and pro-choice argument is ongoing, but perhaps one of the most common mistakes when looking at the abortion question is to assume that all abortions are the same. Not only that, the argument that abortions should not be allowed under any circumstances asserts claims on the immorality of abortion as it emphasizes that abortion is wrong. On the other hand, to allow abortion does not imply that it is right, it merely says that it is, so if a person who is pregnant feels it is wrong, then they should also have the choice to give the child up for adoption or keep it. In this essay, I will argue for the position that abortion should be allowed under some circumstances, and that is to say that there are numerous legitimate reasons

In Don Marquis’ essay “Why Abortion is immoral” he makes a case that most abortions are “seriously immoral”. The argument is based on assumption. Many of the writers on the ethics of abortion believe that whether or not abortion is permissible morally, or simply put is a fetus life seriously wrong to end. A utilitarian would ask whether having an abortion brings the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Abortion was an “evil” act, arguing that the end justified the means of the traditional views that the Utilitarians challenged. They usually support any position that is pro-choice. And as stated in the previous essay Mill was a firm believer is individual sovereignty. Mill can be arguing for rule utilitarianism, pretty much saying