Dr. Gompets's Arguments Against Abortions

The key element of Don Marquis argument is in the effort to distinguish the difference between abortion and contraception in order to provide a clear argument against abortion, aside from extreme cases. Without conflicting with the interest of the general public by being forced to suggest contraception is ethically wrong as well.

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.

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.

In Judith A. Thomson’s article, ‘A defense of abortion’ Thomson defends her view that in some cases abortion is morally permissible. She takes this stance even with the premise that fetuses upon the moment of conception are in fact regarded as persons. However one criticism of her argument would be that there is a biological relationship between mother and fetus however there is no biological relationship between you and the violinist. Having this biological relationship therefore entails special responsibility upon the mother however there is no responsibility in the case of the violinist. Thomson argues against those who are opposed to abortion with her violinist thought experiment.

In her article, “The Defense of Abortion”, Judith Jarvis Thomson states an analogy involving a violinist. She first states that you are allowed to unplug yourself in the violinist scenario, second abortion after rape is analogous to the violinist scenario, therefore, you should be allowed to unplug yourself and be allowed to abort after rape (Chwang, Abortion slide 12). In this paper, I will argue that abortion is morally acceptable even if the fetus is considered a person. This paper will criticize premise two from the traditional argument against abortion string that killing innocent persons is wrong (Chwang, Abortion slide 9). Following the violinist analogy will be an objection to this analogy and my respons to them. One of the

In the paper titled “A Defense of Abortion” Judith Thomson uses several premises to bring the readers to the conclusion that Abortion is not morally wrong. After reading her paper I have concluded, that abortion is in fact morally wrong, excluding extenuating circumstances. In this paper I will show that abortion is morally wrong by way of the following argument:

When it comes to ethical issues in the world, there are not many more controversial issues outside of the topic of abortion. Abortion brings in emotion, religion and ethics all at once, which is why it is such a polarizing topic. This leads to having many on each side of the debate, such as Judith Thomson and John Noonan. Thomson makes many valid analogies in support of abortion in comparison to Noonan who just refutes basic arguments for abortion, and it is for this reason that Thomson is more persuasive.

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.

Abortion is a polarizing issue that many have firm opinions about. Abortion is a moral issue because it involves whether or not a fetus has the right to life and if ending that life is considered to be murder or not. Don Marquis presents the argument that abortion is morally wrong because it deprives the fetus of a future. Marquis continues that any action that robs a person of a future, such as abortion, is morally wrong. Marquis’ argument for abortion is unsound, especially for cases such as rape. To illustrate, if Marquis argues that any action that robs a person of a future is morally wrong, then it follows that a woman who suffered the consequences of rape is also robbed of a potential future. It is important to consider involuntary pregnancies

In the article 'A Defense of Abortion' Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that abortion is morally permissible even if the fetus is considered a person. In this paper I will give a fairly detailed description of Thomson main arguments for abortion. In particular I will take a close look at her famous 'violinist' argument. Following will be objections to the argumentative story focused on the reasoning that one person's right to life outweighs another person's right to autonomy. Then appropriate responses to these objections. Concluding the paper I will argue that Thomson's 'violinist' argument supporting the idea of a mother's right to autonomy outweighing a fetus' right to life does not

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.

Judith Jarvis Thomson proposes her argument in her article, A Defense of Abortion. There, she explains to her readers during what circumstances is abortion justifiable. Thomson uses the argument by analogy strategy to explain to her readers her argument. She tries to reach her conclusion by comparing it to similar cases. The point she is trying to make is to tell her readers that abortion is morally permissible only in some cases, like when the mother has been a victim of rape, when contraception has failed or when the pregnancy is of danger to the mother. She explains to her readers that abortion is justifiable only in some cases, not all. Thomson uses the case of a violinist to show her readers that abortion is morally permissible when a woman has been victim of rape. She also uses the people seeds story as an analogy to explain that abortion is morally acceptable when contraception has failed. Thomson also mentions the right to life in her article. She uses the right to life to explain to us that it is morally justifiable for the mother to abort the fetus when the fetus is endangering the mother’s life. In order to help her readers understand the notion of right to life she is trying to propose to us, she does so by using the Henry Fonda example. In my point of view, I find most of Thomson’s analogies irrelevant to the argument she is trying to make. I will explain to my readers why I find Thomson’s analogies irrelevant.

Abortion is a serious topic that people have been debating about for years. Everywhere you turn the topic of abortion presents itself, on TV, in the newspapers, in books and magazines. It already has, and will continue to cause, controversy for years to come. As long as abortion remains legal, pro-life advocates will continue to protest what they believe to be these horrible acts of murder.