Don Marquis's Essay 'Why Abortion Is Immoral'

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.

There are many factors that are taken into consideration when determining if abortion is morally permissible, or wrong including; sentience of the fetus, the fetuses right to life, the difference between adult human beings and fetuses, the autonomy of the pregnant woman, and the legality of abortion. Don Marquis argues that abortion is always morally wrong, excluding cases in which the woman is threatened by pregnancy, or abortion after rape, because fetuses have a valuable future. Mary Anne Warren contends that late term abortions are morally permissible because birth is the most significant event for a fetus, and a woman’s autonomy should never be suspended.

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.

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)

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 piece titled “Why Abortion is Immoral”, author Don Marquis argues against abortion primarily using a “future like ours” approach, which is essentially the idea that killing fetuses is wrong because it deprives them of their future. In this paper, I will evaluate Marquis’s views on abortion, and then I will provide my own argument on why abortion is acceptable in most cases. I will do this by highlighting how Marquis fails to consider the mother’s role in abortion. Finally, I will address concerns regarding the mother’s responsibilities in pregnancy by going over situations in which the mother has no obligation in keeping the child.

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 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 ultimately believed that killing a fetus was wrong because it deprived it of a future filled with valuable “experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments”. On the other hand, I argued that mothers have futures of value, and sometimes these futures do not entail having a child. This is something that Marquis failed to address. Essentially, my conclusion was that mothers have the right to have an abortion if having a child deprives them of a future of value. I also answered a few objections by emphasizing some occurrences, such as rape, when the woman has no responsibility to keep the baby. Thus, pregnant females have the liberty to choose whether or not they should keep their unborn

In “Why Abortion is Immoral,” Don Marquis argues that abortion is immoral because it denies the victim, which is the fetus or embryo, of their right to a future-like-ours. He argues that killing is prima facie wrong, and that this logic can be applied to a fetus. In this paper, I will address the ambiguity within the future-like-ours theory, which I will refer to as the FLO theory, and argue that the fetus’ right to a future of value does not override and should not be prioritized over the right to a future of value for the fetus’ host, which is the mother.

In the article “Why Abortion is Immoral,” Don Marquis starts by appealing to the general principle about the wrongness of killing; thus, assuming that the killing of any being is morally unethical in any situation. He then proposes that the killing of a fetus is depriving a being of their future and explains why abortion is morally wrong. His main argument in the article is that it is not morally acceptable to kill the average human being unless given severe conditions due to the fact that it is unethical to impede on the value of the unborn fetus. Marquis shows the most knowledgeable and itemized line of reasoning against abortion. As a result of Marquis’ beliefs, I will argue that his contention comes up short in light because the choice to have an abortion is an individual decision of the woman and it does not cause the loss of a valuable future.

In “Why Abortion is Immoral”, Don Marquis tries to demonstrate that abortion is morally equal to killing someone; it is morally wrong to terminate a fetus, except in certain circumstances. To start off Marquis says, “The view that abortion is, with rare exceptions, seriously immoral has received little support in the recent philosophical literature. No doubt most philosophers affiliated with secular institutions of higher education believe that the anti-abortion position is either a symptom of irrational religious dogma or a conclusion generated by seriously confused philosophical argument. The purpose of this essay is to undermine this general belief. ‘’(Marquis 1). With this statement, he points out that few philosophers

The sanctity of human life is often a dilemma that is arrayed in various forums in the world we live in, be it law, medicine, morality or all three. One such occurrence is abortion. As controversial as it is, various philosophers have proposed impressive approaches, aiming to offer perspectives to address the moral issues that exist when discussing abortion. Don Marquis, an American Philosopher, argues that the killing of a foetus is on par with the killing of an innocent adult human being, morally speaking. But how can this be? Marquis’ argument is based on a notion that the foetus is a “potential person” and that it has future aspirations and projections which are inhibited if aborted. This essay will explore the faults in Marquis’ premises, in that the inconsistencies of morally equating the personhood of an adult with that of an unborn foetus. Furthermore, I explore how the right to life can be applied to disprove this argument against abortion. The notion of utility will also be explored and how different perspectives can be proposed to argue against the supposed moral parity of abortion and the killing of an adult human person.