John Marquis Abortion Analysis

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.

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.

During this article he will talk about anti-abortion and prochoice, meaning one is against abortion and the other one is okay with the choice you decide to go with. Anti-abortionist believe that everything is obvious and it shows how abortion is murder. Pro choicer believe that the truth is obvious as well but abortion is not a killing. Each of these groups will claim that their reasoning behind aborting or not will either be right or wrong depending in what group you seem to represent. In the article, Marquis wrote that anti-abortionist will claim that their information supported will be morally correct because of how wrong it is to take a baby’s life. As for the pro choicer, they will claim that it is accepted by the moral values and on how it is not wrong to take a human life. By trying to correct the problems of decision making it can still lead to other problems. The anit-abortionist will try to get rid of the problem by reconciling the wrongs of killing a human. After this it can lead to “It is always prima facie seriously wrong to end a human being” (p.253). This advantage can be a bit harder to reach because it is stated in this article that a fetus is a human and alive, but it still doesn’t mean that that the fetus

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.

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

With Thomson’s violinist analogy she shows that although disconnecting him would result in death, it would not be morally incorrect. This argument can be applied to a woman’s pregnancy, suggesting that if you accept the prior statement and can find no reasonable difference between the violinist and the fetus occupying the woman’s body, then you should accept that abortion can be acceptable. Thomson

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

In the “Violinist Analogy,” Thomson argues that in cases of rape and other ways in which a woman might become pregnant without making the decision to have sex, it is not immoral to have an abortion. She makes this argument through the analogy that you are hooked up to a “famous unconscious violinist” and if you unplug yourself you are causing the death of that violinist. This point works very well in the argument that it seems as though abortion is allowable in cases of rape.

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.

Abortion is a moral issue that is very controversial. Abortion is a deliberate termination of a pregnancy and has been performed for thousands of years. Majority of the debate of morality on abortion is whether the fetus is a person or not. And if a fetus is a person, is it morally okay to kill a person? What is it is in self-defense, is it then okay to kill a person? These are a few of the many questions that come to mind when abortion comes to topic. Judith Jarvis Thompson and Don Marquis have enlighten, yet opposing arguments. Judith Thompson believes abortion is morally acceptable while Don Marquis believes abortion is murder. They both have very strong and convincing arguments, but who would Thomas Aquinas agree with? I am going

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

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).

According to Don Marquis, it would be immoral for Jane to go through with the abortion. Marquis argues that abortion, except in exceptional situations, is immoral not because of the effects that it will have on the family or friends of the victim, but the victim itself. An abortion will take away any future experiences of the victim and that would be the greatest loss an individual can suffer. Many would argue against Marquis and say that because a fetus cannot value their own futures then their futures are not valuable to them, and because a fetus cannot desire it’s own life that they have no right to exist. Marquis suggests that though they might not value or desire their future now it does not entail that they won’t, as they grow older. According to Marquis a fetus is a person that has a right to life and if Jane were to go through with the abortion she would be depriving her eight-week-old fetus of it’s valuable future-like-ours. Therefore, aborting the baby would be wrong and just as wrong as killing an adult human being.

Don Marquis believes that abortion is impermissible. Don Marquis states that “All humans, whatever their race, gender, religion or age, have the right to life.” (Marquis) Marquis also believes that killing a fetus is morally wrong. The fetus that is being killed has the right to have a future like ours. He would say that since a fetus is human they do have a right to life just like every human. Marquis thinks that people such as Judith Jarvis Thompson who believe abortion is permissible will find any way to make it sound to them that killing a fetus is moral and not a moral wrong. I agree with this because the fetus does have the right to life. But something I also believe is if that precautions are taken or a rape occurs and the women does not want that child, abortion