The Pros And Cons Of Abortion

There are two main political parties you can choose from in the United States, The Democrats and the Republicans. There are also third parties you can choose from. People can choose to be part of any party. We are divided by the left and right side on the political spectrum. The right are more conservative and the left are more liberal. These two political parties show philosophical differences through their viewpoints on major topics. With so many differences between the parties, finding topics or issues upon which constituents agree on can be difficult.

On one end of the argument is the belief that all human lives are of equal merit, because they are humans it gives them equal merit. Therefore no human should ever take the life of another, even if that individual has taken other lives. This argument is mostly favored by people of religious faith, but there are some sensible individuals who also adhere to this as an ethical position. At the other end of the spectrum is an argument in favor of the death penalty because of its ability to get rid of a problematic human so that they will be able to do no more harm. This is a very utilitarianism-like perspective of the death penalty. To examine this perplexing ethical dilemma one must first figure out their stance on what death is, like Socrates would.

defends that abortion is a morally sound action. Don Marquis, in his essay An Argument that Abortion is Wrong, takes the opposite stance. He claims “that abortion, except perhaps in rare instances, is seriously wrong”.

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)

“How can the “Dream” survive if we murder children? Every aborted baby is like a slave in the womb of his or her mother. The mother decides his or her fate” (Martin Luther King, Jr). This quote, by Martin Luther King Jr, represents how Martin Luther King Jr really feels about abortions, and how abortions relate back to the idea of slavery. As abortions are spreading all across the world many people have wondered if there are any positives to abortions? If there are not any positives to abortion then people may wonder, what are the negatives to abortions, and how do other people feel about abortions.

Marquis thinks that premise one is true because killing in particular “deprives the victim more than perhaps any other crime” (Marquis, 1989, pg. 190). The reason that killing is wrong, Marquis thinks, is because of the innate badness that death brings via depriving something of a future. It is this depriving of a future that Marquis uses to motivate the rest of his argument, and why killing is bad. The second premise is true to Marquis because it is “having a future like [ours] is what makes killing someone wrong” (1989, pg. 191). The key phrasing here is that a future like ours (FLO) extends to something that can grow to value a future much like our own, therefore, giving a fetus FLO. Finally, Marquis finds the third premise is true because, abortion is killing off a being that can develop into having a FLO. It also does not even have to do with the fact it will be human, but merely because it could have a FLO (Marquis, 1989, pg. 191). Marquis has already provided that death has an intrinsic quality of depriving a future (pg. 190), so he makes a reasonable connection that killing is bad, and therefore, abortion is equivocal to killing because it causes death, which then deprives the fetus of a FLO (Marquis, 1989). Naturally, the conclusion must be true that aborting a fetus is impermissible after following the truths of premises

Marquis motivates that the loss of life is one of the greatest losses one can suffer and it deprives one of a value for their future. Although a fetus cannot fully value their future at this point in time, they can value their future later on in life. Thus, just having the potential of a future in it of itself is sufficient enough to draw to the conclusion that killing is seriously wrong (195).

Don Marquis in his article "An Argument that Abortion is Wrong" sets forth an argument that, except in rare cases, abortion is wrong. Two of Marquis’s main points against abortion are The “Future Like Ours” Account for the Wrongness of Killing and The Appeal to Cases Argument. In these sections of his article, Marquis argues that killing anyone, including a fetus, is wrong when it robs that individual of the opportunity to have a “future like ours” (FLO). Marquis argues in The “Future Like Ours” Account for the Wrongness of Killing that “[p]remature death is a misfortune, in general, because it deprives an individual of a future of value.” (Marquis 755) A “Future Like Ours” is described by Marquis as the opportunity to have a future of value. Every individual should hves the opportunity to have a future of value, thus one issue of abortion is whether fetuses should be allowed to have a “future like ours”. Marquis does state the level of misfortune varies between different deaths because of the underlying premise of being deprived of a future conscious life. To show the

Therefore , when I die I, am deprived of all of the value of my future . Inflicting this loss on me is ultimately what makes killing me wrong. This being the case, it would seem tat what makes killing any adult human being prima facie seriously wrong is the loss of his or her future.”(Don Marquis p127) Don Marquis compares Abortion to Wanton infliction of pain on animals. Marquis came to the conclusion that infliction of pain cause suffering, and since causing suffering is what makes the wanton infliction of pain wrong and since the wanton infliction of pain on animals cause suffering, it follows that the wanton infliction of pain on animals is wrong. (Don Marquis p.127) Terminating of a life causes suffering so Abortions are under the same principal which makes abortions wrong also.

I hold the belief that a woman should have the right to have an abortion if that is what she would like. This means I identify as a pro-choice supporter. If the government ever decide to illegalize abortion, it would mean that women do not 'own' their body and instead the lawmakers do. As soon as a third party, such as lawmakers, are given the power to decide that abortions are wrong and they decide to ban abortions, women are no longer in control of their own bodies which makes them powerless.

The central claim is that the wrongness of killing is due to the fact that it deprives the victim of a chance at a fulfilling future life. A “future like ours,” Marquis argues, is the most that it is possible to loose, more than property, liberty, dignity, or anything else, which accounts for killing’s status as one of the worst of crimes. Because we reasonably expect fetuses to have a future like ours if they survive, abortions are a form of killing and therefore they are

To begin, Marquis addresses the widely-accepted conception of why it is wrong to kill humans. It is neither that fact that our death will inflict pain on the murder or the victim’s family but rather the loss of the life. When a human seizes to exist, they are deprived of all future experiences, feelings, emotions, or activities that they would have if they were alive. Marquis supports this by stating two considerations:

Distinct from an action that is absolutely wrong, an action that is prima facie morally wrong is considered wrong unless countervailing reasons explain why it is permissible under certain circumstances. To determine whether abortion is prima facie morally wrong, Don Marquis argues that we must determine what feature makes it prima facie morally wrong to end an adult life, and then determine whether fetuses share that feature. If fetuses do share that feature, then it is prima facie morally wrong to end the life of a fetus by means of abortion. Marquis theorizes four reasons it may be prima facie morally wrong to end an adult life: (1) killing causes suffering to the victim, (2) killing brutalizes the killer by tarnishing his moral character, (3) killing harms those who feel a great loss due to the absence of the victim, or (4) killing is wrong due to the enormous loss caused to the victim of the killing.

Death is an unusually severe punishment, unusual in its pain, enormity and finality. Human life has it’s value and to punish someone by ending their life might seem immoral, but in front of the constitution, death penalty can be justifiable based on the crime. Even though one might deserve this punishment under the law, is it a human right to end someone's life? The death penalty might stand as an ultimate judgment in the sense that it rightfully punishes the guilty and safeguards other human lives. In most moral and religious implications it’s wrong for one human to end another human’s life. The law exist to serve and protect the people so should the system abolish the death penalty based on ethical implications or should it dissolve the current

From an early age, children are taught that murder is morally wrong. In today’s complex society that is impeded by unsettling periods of civil unrest, it is an expectation for everyone to acknowledge and accept that murder is one of the worst crimes individuals can commit. Perhaps it can be said that the death penalty is one of our legal system’s biggest contradictions of itself, as, if someone commits murder (or another heinous crime of that caliber), such ‘murderers’ will, in states that have capital punishment laws, be sent to Death Row and ultimately murdered in order to prevent potential future crimes by such perpetrators. I believe that the death penalty is wrong not only as it is immoral to take a life, but also, such ineffective laws waste money and do not deter crime.