More handpicked essays just for you.
"why abortion is immoral" by don marquis summary
Philosophical aspects of abortion
"why abortion is immoral" by don marquis summary
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Before Birth Essay
The word abortion brings out a variety of attitudes & perceptions amongst people. The topic is surrounded by emotion and empathy, which often creates a divide, those who view abortion as permissible and those who do not. In “Bioethics Before Birth," Tooley and Marquis provide their arguments on abortion. Their arguments share some similarities but their viewpoints and delivery set them apart. I will evaluate and compare the differences and similarities in their arguments.
Tooley views abortion as morally permissible. From the beginning he is fully aware that he may be taking the less sympathetic or unpopular viewpoint. He insists that to make an ethical verdict on abortion, “one should be prepared to point to a morally relevant difference between a newborn baby and the earlier stage in the development of a human being” (Tooley 38). Tooley’s argument primarily focuses on “what makes something a person, what gives something a right to life,” (Tooley 38). In other words, Tooley aims to define what a person is and determine whether abortion is the
…show more content…
A considerable difference is that Marquis’ beliefs are associated with the uncertainty of the future whereas Tooley’s beliefs are invested in the present. Tooley claims that because a fetus isn 't a fully capable person, a fetus is not afforded a merit in a decision such an abortion. Tooley’s argument is based solely on what the fetus is capable of before birth. Marquis’ argument is based on potential following birth. Marquis holds the value of a human future to a high regard. Marquis makes a profound point when he compares the refusal to kill suicidal teens to the anti-abortion position. He emphasizes that the reasoning for not killing suicidal teens is solely because the teen could possibly posses “the desire at some future time to live.” Thus, simply because one is not capable of desiring life does not mean one is not worthy of
Marquis’ argues that like adult humans, fetuses have the ability to experience a future and by preventing them from experiencing that future through abortion is the same as killing an adult human.
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
The standard argument against abortion claims that the fetus is a person and therefore has a right to life. Thomson shows why this standard argument against abortion is a somewhat inadequate account of the morality of abortion.
This essay examines and critiques Judith Jarvis Thomson’s, A Defense of Abortion (1971). Thomson sets out to show that the foetus does not have a right to the mother’s body and that it would not be unjust to perform an abortion when the mother’s life is not threatened. For the sake of the argument, Thomson adopts the conservative view that the foetus is a person from the moment of conception. The conservative argument asserts that every person has a right to life. The foetus has a right to life.
Many arguments in the abortion debate assume that the morality of abortion depends upon the moral status of the foetus. While I regard the moral status of the foetus as important, it is not the central issue that determines the moral justifiability of abortion. The foetus may be awarded a level of moral status, nevertheless, such status does not result in the prescription of a set moral judgement. As with many morally significant issues, there are competing interests and a variety of possible outcomes that need to be considered when making a moral judgement on abortion. While we need to determine the moral status of the foetus in order to establish the type of entity we are dealing with, it does not, however, exist in a moral vacuum. There are other key issues requiring attention, such as the moral status and interests of the pregnant woman who may desire an abortion, and importantly, the likely consequences of aborting or not aborting a particular foetus. Furthermore, I assert that moral status should be awarded as a matter of degree, based upon the capacities of sentience and self-consciousness an entity possesses. In a bid to reach a coherent conclusion on the issue, the moral status of both foetus and woman, along with the likely results of aborting a particular foetus, must be considered together. Given the multiple facets requiring consideration, I assert that utilitarianism (Mill 1863) offers a coherent framework for weighing and comparing the inputs across a variety of situations, which can determine whether it is ever morally justifiable to have an abortion.
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
Patrick Lee and Robert P. George’s, “The Wrong of Abortion” is a contentious composition that argues the choice of abortion is objectively unethical. Throughout their composition, Lee and George use credibility and reason to appeal the immorality of abortions. The use of these two methods of persuasion are effective and compels the reader to consider the ethical significance. Lee and George construct their argument by disputing different theories that would justify abortions. They challenge the ontological and evaluation theories of the fetus, as well as the unintentional killing theory. This article was obtained through Google, in the form of a PDF file that is associated with Iowa State University.
Mary Anne Warren’s “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion” describes her justification that abortion is not a fundamentally wrong action for a mother to undertake. By forming a distinction between being genetically human and being a fully developed “person” and member of the “moral community” that encompasses humanity, Warren argues that it must be proven that fetuses are human beings in the morally relevant sense in order for their termination to be considered morally wrong. Warren’s rationale of defining moral personhood as showcasing a combination of five qualities such as “consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, capacity of communication, and self-awareness” forms the basis of her argument that a fetus displays none of these elements that would justify its classification as a person and member of the morally relevant community (Timmons 386).
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.
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.
Thomson starts off her paper by explaining the general premises that a fetus is a person at conception and all persons have the right to life. One of the main premises that Thomson focuses on is the idea that a fetus’ right to life is greater than the mother’s use of her body. Although she believes these premises are arguable, she allows the premises to further her explanation of why abortion could be morally permissible. People would find it more understanding and more willing to help someone who is a relative.
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.
Warren rejects emotional appeal in a very Vulcan like manner; devout to reason and logic and in doing so has created a well-written paper based solely on this rational mindset. Works Cited Warren, Mary Anne, and Mappes, D. DeGrazia. On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion. Biomedical Ethics 4th (1996): 434-440. Print.
Abortion has been a highly controversial topic throughout the years. A lot of people accept abortion as a normal procedure while the equal amount of people looks at it as a horrible crime. This subject has been looked at from a scientific point of view as well as a religious one. In this essay I will try to analyze abortion from an ethical point of view.
According to Judith Thomson in her book “A Defense of Abortion”, a human embryo is a person who has a right to life. But, just because the human fetus has the right to life does not mean that the mother will be forced to carry it (Thomson, 48). Naturally, abortion may be seen as the deliberate termination of a pregnancy before the fetal viability. Though people have understood this, the topic of abortion has remained a controversial issue in the world. Individuals are divided into “Pro-choice” and “Pro-life” debaters depending on their opinion on the morality of the action. "Pro-life," the non-consequentialist side, is the belief that abortion is wrong, generally because it equates to killing. "Pro-choice," the consequentialist view, however,