Taking a Look at Don Marquis

On the second to last evening, Crake said, “Let me walk you through a hypothetical scenario.” “I’m game,” Said Jimmy. Actually he was sleepy-he’d had too much popcorn and beer-but he sat up and put on his paying-attention look, the one he’d perfected in high school. Hypothetical scenarios were a favourite thing of Crake’s. “Axiom: that illness isn’t productive. In itself, it generates no commodities and therefore no money. Although it’s an excuse for a lot of activity, all it really does is cause

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

understand the current debate over the issues concerning abortion we must not look at this issue from a black and white perspective of what is right and what is wrong , but rather we must take a comprehensive approach which analyzes the complex questions and factors tied to the morality of abortion. By looking at the responses to the question of abortion, as discussed by Mary Anne Warren, Judith Jarvis Thomson, and Don Marquis, we might better understand on how to respond to this issue in terms of

killed. The answer to this question usually devolves into an argument about whether or when a fetus is a person. This type of argument has not been able to resolve the difference between ideologies throughout the decades. It is for this reason that Don Marquis in his article “Why Abortion is Immoral” aims to take a different perspective on the controversy by discussing why he believes that killing is wrong in general and applying that logic to a fetus. However, Marquis’s argument that abortion is prima

abortion is brought back into the spotlight. Mary Anne Warren and Judith Jarvis Thomson lean towards the more liberal perspective and generally believe in women’s right to self-determination. On the other hand, opposers like John T. Noonan and Don Marquis have a more conservative standpoint and consider abortion to be overall immoral. I would agree with Thomson’s moderate viewpoint, that abortions should be permissible to save the life of the mother, in cases of rape, and reasonable precaution because

Many women get pregnant without meaning to do so. It could be from a one night stand with some guy she met at a bar, or with a long time boyfriend she is unhappy with. Sadly, a young woman could also get pregnant from being raped by a family member or even a complete stranger. What are they supposed to do? These women aren 't ready for a child. Some women will go through the pregnancy, but a lot of them will resort to abortion. Abortion is the ending of a pregnancy (Vaughn 293). There are three different

call here is whether or not it is worth risking the life of a mature woman that is loved, is more valuable than the child growing in her belly. Marquis brings up the idea of “Future like ours” (FLO). He claims that killing deprives a person of a future that is like ours, and says that abortion is killing a fetus that will have a future like ours. Taking someone’s entire future away from them is the worst of crimes, and he argues that abortion is this kind of deprivation of future. Killing an adult

Summary and Critique of Don Maquis- Anti-Abortion Argument 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. When he compiles his argument he begins by providing the argument for a ‘pro-choice’ approach which makes the

436). It is evident that the argument between pro-life and pro-choice is not that killing is a deplorable act, but rather at what point a fetus constitutes a “person” with the moral right to life. Some philosophers, such as Mary Anne Warren and Don Marquis, believe that a scientific definition is not sufficient in determining “personhood.” Therefore these authors create their own criteria that one must meet to claim these rights. The issue with creating criteria, rather than focusing on biology,

The answer of which would solve the debate over the morality of abortion. Instead she looks at situations in which abortion should be morally permissible, while granting all fetuses have a right to life. She does so through a variety of odd analogies, some of which may come across as ridicules, and unnecessary. However, to some it may be