In his essay, “Why Abortion is Immoral,” Marquis argues that what makes killing someone wrong is that it deprives them of a valuable future like ours (Vaughan 2012, p.321). Moreover, a fetus has the possibility of having a valuable future. Therefore, abortion deprives the fetus of a valuable future, and so Marquis deduces that abortion is wrongful killing. In this paper, I will consider an objection to the future like ours argument which argues that we cannot determine what is a valuable future and whether the fetus will have a valuable future at all. In what follows, I will defend Marquis’ future like ours reasoning by arguing that it is moral to give the fetus a chance at a valuable future than to deprive them of that possibility altogether. …show more content…
Before delving into the objections against Marquis’ argument, it is important to clarify that the loss of a future is not merely the loss of a life.
However, many people may understand Marquis’ argument to mean abortion is immoral because it causes the loss of life, which is not the argument that Marquis is presenting. To begin, the loss of life is merely a change in the status of the biological state. In other words, it is to go from alive- breathing, sentient, animate, to dead or passed away, lifeless. The loss of life is distressing not because of this change in state, but because of the effects of this change. That is to say, a loss of life results in a loss of future, which is not just a change in the biological state but a loss of future “experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted one’s future” (321). This point is important to note as Marquis suggests that the primary reason for killing being wrongful is not due to the negative effects of the death on the victim’s family and friends. Rather, killing is wrongful because of its effect on the one who has been killed. According to Marquis, the greatest loss someone can suffer is the loss of their life as they will no longer be able to have a valuable future (321). Thus, the loss of a valuable future is so devastating that Marquis argues that almost all cases of abortion are prima facie …show more content…
wrong. On the outside, Marquis’ argument looks strong and immovable.
However, the problem in his argument lies in the fact that it is too vague. For instance, Marquis argues that what makes killing someone wrong is that it deprives them of a valuable life. For this reason, abortion is wrong because it deprives the fetus of a valuable life. However, a reason against thinking that a fetus has a valuable future like ours is that we cannot necessarily know for a fact whether the fetus will have a valuable life. There are two parts to this rebuttal. Firstly, we cannot say that a fetus will have a valuable life because the concept of a valuable life is too vague. Furthermore, people value different things so what I may deem as a valuable life may differ from what another person deems as a valuable life. That is, even if the fetus does have one specific future we have no way of knowing its value. Secondly, we cannot say that abortion will deprive a fetus of a valuable life because we do not know the future of the fetus. Marquis claims, “The future of a standard fetus includes a set of experiences, projects, activities, and such which are identical with the futures of adult human beings and are identical with the futures of young children…” (322). Unless Marquis is speaking about fetuses in a specific community in a specific town, and even then it is greatly debatable, there is no such thing as a ‘standard’ fetus since the possible future of every fetus is drastically different. In the
same way, a fetus’s future cannot be identical with the future of an adult or a child because the future is not the same for any two people; it is unpredictable. There is no saying whether or not a fetus will live past birth or live into old age. We can also not determine whether the fetus will live a life of pleasure and fulfillment or one of suffering and hardships. In addition, the fetus may grow up to be a talented and influential person like Beethoven or a hateful tyrant like Adolf Hitler. Thus, we cannot make the claim that a fetus has a valuable life like ours since the term valuable is vague and indeterminate. Also, the fetus’ future may not be just like ours, in fact, it may be vastly different. On the contrary, Marquis might respond to this claim by saying that being unsure of a fetus’ future possibilities does not justify killing a fetus. Depriving a fetus of a possible valuable future is the same as depriving the fetus of a future reality. That is to say, a reason in favour of thinking that a fetus has a valuable future like ours is that it is better to give the fetus a chance at a future they might find valuable than to deprive them of any possibility of a valuable future at all. For this reason, we should not assume that a fetus would not have a valuable future should they be given the opportunity to live. I believe the argument in favour of a fetus having a valuable future like us is a stronger argument than the one against it because it logically refutes the argument against and reiterates Marquis idea of a valuable future. The reason against thinking that a fetus has a valuable life like ours is refuted because despite not knowing what a valuable life is to the fetus, or whether the fetus will have a valuable life at all, allowing the killing of a fetus because we are unsure of the possibility is immoral. To put it otherwise, Marquis’ argument is strong because it explains why killing is immoral. Although the argument against says that a fetus will not necessarily have a valuable future, it does not state that a fetus cannot have a valuable future. Therefore, because there is a possibility of a fetus having a life that it deems valuable in the future, abortion is prima facie wrong. In the case where the fetus is said to have a life that is valueless, Marquis says that abortion is not immoral, as it does not deprive the fetus of a valuable life. An example of this would be a fetus that is born with a defect or illness that would cause their life to be extremely painful and distressing, to the extent that these circumstances would deprive the fetus of a valuable future.
Don Marquis argument is more convincing than Mary Anne Warren’s because the argument of the wrongness of killing as it destroys the opportunity of a valuable future, always overcomes the defense of a woman’s autonomy, as the woman who’s life is not threatened by pregnancy has various other morally feasible options than abortion. This paper will first provide an exposition of Marquis argument and Warren’s argument, and secondly an explanation of why Marquis argument is more persuasive than Warren’s.
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
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...
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 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.
...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 Dan Marquis’ article, “Why Abortion is Immoral”, he argues that aborting a fetus is like killing a human being already born and it deprives them of their future. Marquis leaves out the possible exceptions to abortion that include: 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 by examining the difference between a human being’s already born future compared to a potential fetus’s future.
In Judith Jarvis Thompson’s article “A Defense of Abortion” she explores the different arguments against abortion presented by Pro –Life activists, and then attempts to refute these notions using different analogies or made up “for instances” to help argue her point that women do have the right to get an abortion. She explains why abortion is morally permissible using different circumstances of becoming pregnant, such as rape or unplanned pregnancy.
Abortion is an important and rather popular topic in the philosophical world. On one side of the argument, pro choice, Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that abortion is permissible because the pregnancy might not have been voluntary or the mother’s life is at risk if she continues on with the pregnancy. On the opposing side of the argument, Don Marquis argues that abortion is wrong because it takes away all the potential things a fetus could value in their future life. In this paper, I will argue against Don Marquis view of abortion. I will begin by explaining that Marquis does not take into consideration the effect the pregnancy may have on the mother, and I will talk about how Thomson does take the mother into consideration. Next, I will criticize
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.
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.
The overall thesis that Thomson presents in “A Defence of Abortion”, is that abortion is permissible no matter the personhood status of the fetus. Their argument addresses various aspects of the issue; the rights of the fetus, the person pregant with the fetus, how those rights interact with each other, third parties and moral obligation. They claim that the rights of a fetus are not any more important than the rights of the person pregnant. However, they also address cases where there would be a sense of moral obligation not to have an abortion. Their discussion about third party participation can be used for other types of necessary third party participation.
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.
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.
His pro-life position is established without using personhood and religious premises. Marquis looks for a solid argument as to why abortion is immoral. Whether or not abortion is wrong we determine it based on what we identify the fetus as, Marquis says “whether a fetus is the sort of being whose life it is seriously wrong to end” (pg317) Pro-life people compare a fetus to a human, while pro-choice people argue that a fetus lacks any of the features that make the fetus a person that would support the argument that killing a person is wrong. He believes a fetus is a human being. Since, the arguments of whether or not a fetus is a human being go back and forth, he says, “in order to develop such an account we can start from the following unproblematic assumption concerning our own case: it is wrong to kill us.”(pg321) To be able to comprehend the wrongness in killing us we must understand what killing us actually does to us. Marquis states that killing us “imposes on us the misfortune of premature death. This misfortune underlies the wrongness.” Marquis argues that because the fetus has a human-like future it is immoral to abort the fetus. A human-like future suggests that the fetus has a future and has the potential to do things in its future life. To abort the fetus would be to deprive the person it would had eventually become from any future experiences,