More handpicked essays just for you.
Summary of Why abortion is immoral by Don Marquis
Summary of Why abortion is immoral by Don Marquis
A short essay on abortion : prolife vs prochoice
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Summary of Why abortion is immoral by Don Marquis
Don Marquis addresses two reasons abortion is immortal: the fetus has a future and a life is valuable regardless of the valuer. His first argument has two parts. He claims that killing anyone deprives them of a future – something worse than any other crime could take. Secondly, people who are dying of a disease and know it say that the worst part is not having a long enough future. To abort a fetus, regardless of personhood, robs it of a future; a future-like-ours. A future-like-ours contains all of the experiences, activities, emotions, and relationships we have yet to come.
His second argument deals with the value of life. Pro-abortionists claim that because a fetus cannot value its life, its life has no value. Marquis says, however, that
...ument irrelevant in his argument. I am personally pro- life and do not agree with abortion unless a women was raped and there were extenuating circumstances if the mother’s life was threatened. Marquis FLO argument isn’t valid enough to conduce to his entire theory. Marquis cannot see into the future and determine if a fetus will have a great future. If the pregnancy goes well and the fetus is born, then yes they are entitled to a future, but whether it will be like “ours” is unpredictable making Marquis point of FLO an invalid argument. Abortion is depriving a fetus of a future life in general. If Marquis would have said this instead I would be more willing to agree with his theory. Abortion is morally impermissible because at the end of the day, it is murder. A fetus will grow to be a human with organs and a brain and have some type of future whether good or bad.
In Don Marquis’s essay “Why Abortion is Immoral” he argues that abortion is immoral because he believes that abortion is morally equivalent to killing an adult human being. Marquis’ argument takes the following form:
The topic of my paper is abortion. In Judith Jarvis Thomson's paper, “A Defense of Abortion,” she presented a typical anti-abortion argument and tried to prove it false. I believe there is good reason to agree that the argument is sound and Thompson's criticisms of it are false.
Thus, Marquis’ argument for his pro-life view on abortion is flawed because one of his premises is not completely correct. Marquis argues that fetuses, children, and adults are all human beings and have the right to life. Also, Marquis says that losing one’s life is one of the worst things that can happen to a human being. So he technically declares that it is horrible to die, but not the worst thing to happen to someone. He starts out with the first premise about how the killing of a fetus deprives it of its potential future experiences.
As to any argument, there are two opposing sides when it comes to the matter of abortions. These two opposers usually refer to themselves as “pro-life” and “pro choice”. Pro-life supporters maintain that abortion is wrong and pro-choice believe that it is a woman’s freedom to choose her pregnancy decisions. When it comes to the topic of abortions, most of us will readily agree that it’s a woman’s choice to decide what her reproductive decisions are, i.e. pro-choice. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is in the question of whether or not abortion is a fundamental right granted to women by the Constitution. Whereas some are convinced that a fetus is considered alive at conception, usually citing the word of God, others maintain that
Famous author Dr. Seuss states that a “person is a person no matter how small.”
In America abortion is one of the most heavily debated topics in recent years. Pro-life or pro-choice? Many people believe it is immoral and even consider abortion to be murder. The definition of abortion states “The termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to being capable of normal growth” Did you know that 1 in 3 women in the U.S. will have an abortion in their lifetime? (Baker, Aspen. "A Better Way to Talk about Abortion." Aspen Baker:. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Aug. 2016.) When first researching this topic I wondered, “What’s the big deal? Why would it matter if someone who was never even born, died?” And I realized that babies that would have been born due to abortion,
In the later stages of her argument, Hursthouse goes through several arguments for how and why abortion might be a morally right decision and/or action, however, towards the end of that section, she makes a rather interesting (if not, peculiar) claim that “even in the cases where the decision to have an abortion is the right one, it can still be the reflection of a moral failing.” (262) Hursthouses reasoning behind this is that this is not to say that a person’s choice is itself one that is “weak or cowardly or irresolute or irresponsible or light-minded,” rather it is because one has failed to acquire or uphold various other character traits that are paradigm of a virtuous person, namely that they possess the traits of “strength, independence,
Marquis’s argument that it is immoral to kill, and abortion is wrong because it deprives one of a valuable future has a lot of problems in my eyes that does not make his view on anti-abortion solid. The lack of arguments that do not raise questions that seem to go unanswered make it hard to be persuaded to change a pro-abortionist mind or even be open to understanding where Marquis’s arguments lead. His “what if” argument leaves room for anyone opposing to “what if” in any direction which is not grounds for an effective argument and hurts Marquis’s because a lot of the questions go unanswered in his essay.
Marquis believes abortion to be extremely immoral. However he mentions that there are exceptions in rare but certain circumstances where abortion is acceptable. We can infer that these instances would include situations that would put the mother or child at serious risk by keeping the fetus. He is frustrated that this idea has received minimal support recently. As a result he wants to influence change in society in hopes of receiving the support and publicity this topic deserves. Marquis’ primary argument stems from the idea of killing in general. He explains it is immoral to kill an adult because it prematurely deprives the human of something they may have valued at the time they were killed, as well as something they may had valued in the future. Although the victim may not realize it at the time of their death, they certainly had a valuable future ahead of them to experience which has been cut short. We are the only ones who can decide what is valuable to them; in this case we value some things more than others, and this concept differs from person to person. For example, in the present I value the life I am given and the opportunity I have to earn my degree at Villanova University while also valuing my future as well knowing that I have a chance to be successful in the future. Although I have not succeeded yet, I still value that opportunity I have and the life I’m capable of achieving through earning a degree. Therefore, he connects this same theory to the life of a fetus. By killing the fetus the result is the same, we are depriving it of its futur...
To conclude, Marquis’s argument that abortion is wrong is incorrect. Thomson gives many examples of why Marquis is wrong, including that the mother’s right to her body
Don Marquis primary argument lays on the fact that a fetus possesses a property, the possession of which in an adult human being is sufficient to make killing an adult human being wrong, makes abortion wrong (Gedge & Waluchow, 2012, p224). This property is the right to a valuable future. Marquis argument defends the position that abortion is morally wrong against pro-choice arguments, including the irrationality of a fetus, the lack of a fetus desire to live, and the fetus not being considered a victim.
In the Judith Jarvis Thomson’s paper, “A Defense of Abortion”, the author argues that even though the fetus has a right to life, there are morally permissible reasons to have an abortion. Of course there are impermissible reasons to have an abortion, but she points out her reasoning why an abortion would be morally permissible. She believes that a woman should have control of her body and what is inside of her body. A person and a fetus’ right to life have a strong role in whether an abortion would be okay. Thomson continuously uses the story of a violinist to get the reader to understand her point of view.
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 make abortion permissible.
Abortion “is an issue that raises questions about life and death, about what a person is and when one becomes a person, about the meaning of life, about the rights of women, and about the duties of men”(Velasquez 485). Abortion is an unresolved ethical issue that has been in doubt for many years because one can argue that you are killing an innocent person/fetus but many argue that is not person because they don’t have a conscious or the characteristics that defines a “person”. John Stuart Mill in a way justifies abortion, Mill is known to be openly speak about women’s rights and about human rights. Although, it might be immortal to end someone’s life one might argued that the individual has the right to choose and have the option. But in