In this paper, my aim is to argue that Don Marquis ' claim that abortions are immoral is flawed due to the objection of contraception. Marquis ' argument is built around the idea that morality on killing a human being is not based on taking away the victim 's life but rather through taking away their valuable future. "The category that is morally central to this analysis is the category of having a valuable future like ours; it is not the category of personhood"( Marquis, 192). He elaborates on this notion by reasoning that, except in extreme circumstances, killing an adult human is morally wrong because "killing inflicts (one of) the greatest possible losses on the victim...The change in biological state does not by itself make killing wrong...[Death] …show more content…
He states that contraception would be wrong "only if something were denied a human future of value by contraception. Nothing at all is denied such a future by contraception, however." (Marquis, 201). Marquis then lists four candidates in which contraception might harm; 1. Some sperm 2. Some ovum 3. A sperm and an ovum separately and 4. A sperm and an ovum together. For options 1 and 2, Marquis asserts that "assigning the harm is utterly arbitrary" (201). In other words, there is no reason that a sperm or an ovum would be the subject of harm. For option 3, Marquis states that "too many futures were lost". If option 3 was true, then there will be a loss of two futures; one for the sperm and one for the ovum. Finally for the option 4, he states "At the time of contraception, there are hundreds of millions of sperms, one (released) ovum and millions of possible combinations of all of these. There is no actual combination at all. Is the subject of the loss to be a merely possible combination? Which one? This alternative does not yield an actual subject of harm either. Accordingly, the immorality of contraception is not entailed by the loss of a future-like-ours argument simply because there is no non-arbitrary identifiable subject of the loss in the case of contraception."(Marquis, 201). Marquis assumes that in order for something to be deprived of a future, we must …show more content…
In the instance of spermicide, sperms are deprived of a future by being killed. Due to having the sperms being killed, the ovum will remain unfertilized and prevented from having a future itself. The prevention of fertilization deprives the ovum of a future, using this logic abstinence can be said to also deprive ova of potential futures. I do not think that abstinence should be put in the same moral category as killing a human adult, a thought that I feel most people will agree with. For option 3, I argue that it is false that too many futures will be lost as the sperm and ovum will have the same future when they join. The two will develop into a zygote, embryo, fetus and eventually a human ("Fetal Development: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia."). Finally for option 4, I disagree with Marquis ' argument the most. Marquis assumes that in order for something to be deprived of a future, we must be able to directly identify it. When it comes to contraception, we cannot precisely identify which sperm will combine with the ovum and thus we can 't tell which pair of sperm and ovum will be deprived of a future. This is a weak argument as the reasoning is flawed. Using a thought experiment, let us say that there is a theoretical button that when pressed will grant you $1,000,000. However, as a result someone will die. There are billions of people of in the world, so there
...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:
In Dan Marquis’ article, “Why Abortion is Immoral”, he argues that aborting a fetus is like killing a human being already been born and it deprives them of their future. Marquis leaves out the possible exceptions of abortion that includes: a threat to the mom’s life, contraceptives, and pregnancy by rape. First, I will explain Marquis’ pro-life argument in detail about his statements of why abortion is morally wrong. Like in many societies, killing an innocent human being is considered morally wrong just like in the United States. Second, I will state my objection to Marquis’ argument through examining the difference between a human being already born future compared to a potential fetus’s future. Thus, Marquis’ argument for his pro-life
A thin, stretchy sheath about two inches in diameter and six to eight inches long, designed to be worn over penis during sex. Condoms form a physical barrier between penis and the vagina. After ejaculation the tip of the condom holds the semen and prevents it from traveling to woman's reproductive system to fertilize the egg.
Over the duration of the last century, abortion in the Western hemisphere has become a largely controversial topic that affects every human being. In the United States, at current rates, one in three women will have had an abortion by the time they reach the age of 45. The questions surrounding the laws are of moral, social, and medical dilemmas that rely upon the most fundamental principles of ethics and philosophy. At the center of the argument is the not so clear cut lines dictating what life is, or is not, and where a fetus finds itself amongst its meaning. In an effort to answer the question, lawmakers are establishing public policies dictating what a woman may or may not do with consideration to her reproductive rights. The drawback, however, is that there is no agreement upon when life begins and at which point one crosses the line from unalienable rights to murder.
Don Marquis is a philosopher arguing that any form of abortion is immoral. His original thesis states: In the overwhelming majority of cases, deliberate abortions are seriously immoral. He begins by stating why killing is wrong in three statements. He states, “killing is wrong because it brutalizes the killer, it is a loss to others, and it robs the victim of all the experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted one’s future” (68). The first two statements do not address the fetus, but the last statement is very arguable, so Marquis emphasizes his argument on this premise. Depriving anybody of their future has many consequences. Some parts of a person’s future are valued now and some parts could be valued later. Therefore, it is wrong to kill any adult human because it is a loss of future (which has value). He addresses the questions of personhood by stating that fetuses have the potential to be humans. Therefore, killing a fetus is depriving the fetus of having a
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...
In my opinion, Marquis’ argument for why abortion is morally wrong has a couple of flaws, it’s biased towards the fetus and makes some unreasonable assumptions. Specifically, Marquis' account of why killing an adult human is wrong can potentially lead to some controversial conclusions. Marquis also doesn't consider any consequences on the lives of the potential parents of the fetus. Due to the nature of the topic of abortion, it really only applies to women who are thinking of getting an abortion, and as such, we cannot make the standard assumptions that we will have with normal fetuses. In this essay I will explain Marquis' argument, and try to show that his argument cannot conclude that abortion is morally wrong.
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
Throughout her book, May makes it perspicuous the birth control pill provided liberation and prosperity to women. She effectively supports her claim, by incorporating numerous personal testimonies and viewpoints from women. May tells the story of Letty C who found the pill to be “incredibly liberating” when she studied abroad (156). The usage of antidotes benefited May’s ability to emphasize specifically how women’s everyday lives have changed and the many stories reflect the monumental way that the pill has become ingrained in people’s lives.
What exactly is birth control? Birth control means things that can be done to ensure that pregnancy only happens if and when wanted. Nowadays there are a great variety of ways to assure birth control. However, there is only one way that can be considered 100 percent secure. The more it is known about birth control options, the better chances of avoiding an unwanted pregnancy and reducing the risks of getting a sexually transmitted disease, including AIDS.
Sanger explains that people who aren’t fit to care for a child shouldn’t bare children. She goes on to explain that the less irresponsible and reckless people there are “the less immortality shall exist”. Sanger wants to stop the disease known as over population at the source which is in the hands of women controlling the number of offspring they bring into the world. The argument in the speech is that using contraception doesn’t lower morals, when actually not using contraception is immoral because irresponsible people are “filling the earth with misery, poverty, and disease” (Sanger
In Marquis’ article, “An Argument That Abortion Is Wrong,” he says that abortion is seriously wrong. He sets out his argument about abortion in the beginning of the essay to prove why it is wrong. He claims that “abortion, except perhaps in rare instances, is seriously wrong (Marquis, 289).”
Female contraception was first defined in the late 1800’s as the deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation by various techniques, drugs, or devices. The access of female contraception for women has been a subject of debate for thousands of years. Women should have access to contraception because of the health benefits it provides not only physically, but mentally. The use of female contraception supports gender equality, and lastly, the use of contraception provides new arguments against an aging Catholic church.