The Ethics Of Abortion. In Most Societies, Abortion Is

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.

Therefore, in the case of abortion, Deontologism considers both premises to be true, looking at killing an innocent human being as wrongful. The philosopher Don Marquis argues that killing a fetus is wrong because a human is deprived of his (or having a) future. The problem deontologists such as Marquis see with Singer’s account is that if what Singer says is true, it implies that it is acceptable to kill all beings that reduce overall utility, such as any handicapped persons. According to Don Marquis, killing is wrong because of the victims loses his future life. The victim is deprived of “all the experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments which would otherwise have constituted one’s future” (Marquis, 189). There are four main implications that Marquis states as to why abortion is killing and is therefore considered wrong: it is wrong to kill an extraterrestrial being that may enjoy the future personal life, it is wrong to kill other terrestrial beings that may enjoy a future personal life, euthanasia is allowed when no enjoyment of one’s future personal life is possible, closing with the fact that it is wrong to kill toddlers or infants. These implications are specifically made to argue that killing a potential person, specifically instances such as with contraception or totipotent cells, is not the same thing as having a future potential

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).

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.

Seemingly, the arguments presented by Marquis and Steinbock are both centralized on regarding the social act as immoral and inhumane. However, both sociologists adopt diverse approaches based on the eradicative attributes that justify abortion in rare inferences. According to Marquis’ argument, abortion is depicted as an abomination and should be considered as immoral as killing an adult human being. Seemingly, Marquis asserts that various health practitioners disregard the immorality of the act since they believe that the anti-abortion perspective is

In this paper I will discus and examine Judith Jarvis Thomson’s view upon abortion as stated in her argument “A Defense of Abortion”. I will explain her view on the issue and look deeper into her supporting arguments she included in her essay. I will also explain whether I agree with her statements. I would also discuss whether the person can agree with my statements and reason why having an abortion make you in moral.

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:

Lastly, Marquis offers an analogy, the analogy with animals. He goes to show that humans are not the only living things that can suffer. That the suffering of non-human animals is wrong, and thus inflicting pain, whether it is towards a person or non-person is wrong. To deprive someone of a future value is a misfortune no matter whom the deprivation in inflicted on. This analogous argument goes to show that abortion is wrong by taking the same form of this argument for that causing pain and suffering to non-human animals is wrong.

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.

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

When an adult is killed, they lose their future and everything that is apart of it. After years of conscious living, they would lose their relationships, ability to participate in hobbies, and experience the life they have built for themself. Although a fetus loses its future when it is killed as well, it is not losing a conscious experience it has created outside of the womb independently. The opinion that taking away the life an adult human is currently experiencing is equal to taking away the life an unborn human is going to experience applies no value to past personal experiences of each

Thou shalt not kill; one-tenth of what may arguably be the most famous guidelines of morality in the western culture, and also the main driving force for pro-life advocates. The argument supporting their beliefs typically starts with the premises that a fetus is a person, and to destroy or to kill a person is unethical. Therefore abortion, the premeditated destruction of a human being, is murder, and consequently unethical. I deny the fact that the fetus, what I will refer to as an embryo up to 22 weeks old, has the right to live. The opposing argument is invalid because a fetus, although perhaps a part of human species, is not formally a person. This leaves it simply to be a part of the woman?s body, whose fate lies solely in the

Therefore, according to Marquis, a new strategy should be adopted to develop the argument o abortion. In this case, the author starts by illustrating why killing an ordinary adult is morally wrong, and tries to apply same reasons to the case of abortion. Therefore, if similar reasons can be applied to the context of abortion, then decision of it being immoral will be made. The wrong aspect in killing relates to depriving the victim life which is inherently valuable. In this case, killing deprives of the victim the very valuable things that he or she could have achieved in future if life was not terminated prematurely (Vaughn, 2012). Among these valuables are aesthetic experiences, relationships, accomplished projects, achievements and goals. Therefore, killing is regarded as wrong because it denies the victim the value of the future. Marquis, therefore, notes that there are various reasons to explain why killing is wrong. Firstly, it accounts for the idea that murder is the worst crime because of the extent of its deprivation. It also matches with the attitude that the terminally ill develop concerning the future death. In addition, the act of killing has no special importance that supports moral reasons to justify abortion. Furthermore, the author reveals that this idea is plausible in the verdict of various ethical activities. For instance, it is used to explain why euthanasia victims are a time allowed to be killed as well as a reason behind infanticide.

“Abortion is the spontaneous or artificially induced expulsion of an embryo or fetus” (Abortion, 2002). An artificially induced abortion is the type referred to in the legal context. Abortions happen in different situations. The question comes when is it the right or wrong choice. The root question becomes the moment a fetus becomes a person and entitled to rights. The fetus could be a person at conception, during the pregnancy, or at birth. The deciding moment differs from the Pro-life group and Pro-choice group. After critically analyzing four different arguments about the pros and cons of abortion, one will be able to understand the ethical, moral, and

Abortion is one of the most controversial topics of all times. The definition most people associate with abortion is the termination of unwanted pregnancy. In their essay, “The Wrong of Abortion”, Patrick Lee and Robert P. George argue that intentional abortion is unjust and therefore objectively immoral no matter the circumstances. Also, they argue that “the burden of carrying the baby is significantly less than the harm the baby would suffer by being killed; the mother and father have a special responsibility to the child; it follows that intentional abortion (even in few cases where the baby’s death is an unintended but foreseen side effect) is unjust ” (24).