Abortion is highly contested topic among numerous individuals. Different groups of people take different approaches on their stance. Individuals decide what they think or feel is right, government officials decide whether it should be legal and how that should work for all people, while philosophers try to decipher if it is moral or not. Philosophers have tried many approaches to figuring out this problem. Mary Anne Warren takes a progressive approach unlike Don Marquis who has a very reserved approach. The opposition in these two articles bring about a wide scope. Ms. Warren has the idea of personhood which is part of the base for her argument. These characteristics are sentience, emotionality, reason, capacity to communicate, self-awareness, …show more content…
There are several but one is the idea of fetal development. Within this idea, the first thing that should be considered is if they are person like then they have rights. This would imply the more person like the fetus is the more rights it has. An issue with this idea it the traits of person hood. When you use those as your standard some animals are more “person” like and a fetus or a newborn baby. Just because this is so does not mean we grant full rights to an animal. If an individual is endangered by an animal we do not condemn the individual for killing the animal. When considering late term fetus, people usually have issues with this idea because the fetus has some person hood likenesses which make it very difficult to put to the side. Even with this, can we expect all women to abort before the third trimester? Most women prefer this as it makes the process easier, but what if in rare cases the baby won’t live long after birth or the mother’s life becomes endangered? At the end the fetus is not yet a person, this concludes that the mother’s rights are the ones who should be respected. The second is the objection from infanticide. This idea is brought up because fetus nor newborn is a person, according to personhood traits. By saying late term is occasionally ok it implies infanticide should be ok sometimes also, because the difference in capacity of the fetus and newborn are not different. Although people tend to …show more content…
Marquis feels he avoids through the approach to his article that most people get tripped up on. The first being the verbiage used. He avoids words such as person like Ms. Warren used. Because of the focus, he able to not have to determine if the fetus is a person or human. Second, he gains support from arguments defending euthanasia with the ideas of not killing an adult because you would be taking potential away. Lastly, this approach outlook avoids the idea of a fetus and newborn leading to infanticide. By attacking his argument from establishing it from the adult point of view from killing people it avoids some issues others have had to come
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
There are many factors that are taken into consideration when determining if abortion is morally permissible, or wrong including; sentience of the fetus, the fetuses right to life, the difference between adult human beings and fetuses, the autonomy of the pregnant woman, and the legality of abortion. Don Marquis argues that abortion is always morally wrong, excluding cases in which the woman is threatened by pregnancy, or abortion after rape, because fetuses have a valuable future. Mary Anne Warren contends that late term abortions are morally permissible because birth is the most significant event for a fetus, and a woman’s autonomy should never be suspended.
Mary Warren is an important character in Arthur Miller’s play, THE CRUCIBLE. Much of the action in Act III revolves around Mary’s testimony in court. She is a kind and basically honest girl who tries to do the right thing, saving her friends from harm. However, throughout Acts I and II, Mary is a follower who allows Abigail Williams to negatively influence her good judgment. To make matters worse, Mary is terrified of Abigail’s threats. Because of her weak will, the reader isn’t certain if Mary will maintain the courage to help John Proctor to win his court case in Act III.
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 takes a different approach to the topic of abortion than most other people, he doesn 't try to establish that the fetus is a person, but instead tries to establish a reason for why killing us is wrong, and show that the reason also applies to fetuses; and thus
Thirdly, Marquis concludes from the last two premises and says that if you kill a fetus then it is prima facie seriously morally wrong of you. By killing off a human being’s potential values, it is cruel, especially to children because they are defenseless. Then, Marquis asserts that if fetuses and adults are in the same moral categories then the fetus can only be aborted if there is a serious moral concern. In the beginning, Marquis proclaims that there are special cases like rape and the mom’s life being threatened that would override the “moral wrongness” of abortion.
Mary Anne Warren contends that abortion is morally permissible on the grounds that a fetus is not a person. In her eyes, although, fetuses are genetically distinct humans they are not people because they do not have the necessary characteristics for personhood: sentience, reasoning, emotionality, the capacity to communicate, self-awareness, and moral agency. For her, the lack of these characteristics do not necessarily allude that a fetus is not a person only that it belittles the confidence that they are a person- or in other words creates doubt of their personhood. In this essay, I shall argue when it comes to emotionality Warren sets the bar too high and indoingso runs the risk of wrongly overlooking different types of emotionality, which
In order for the pro-life argument to be valid, it must have both a true premise and true conclusion. It falls short of validity by assuming that a fetus up to 22 weeks old is a person, and has its own rights independent of its host, or what we often refer to as its mother. First we must recognize the subtle, yet extremely important distinction between a human being and a person. It is obvious that a fetus is a member of the human ...
Granted that killing is wrong; the act of killing alone is not enough to make it immoral, and Marquis argues that it is not the effect it has on the murderer, or the effect of the victims family or friends, but the effect on the victim that makes killing wrong. The fact he/she is deprived of life experiences is the ultimate loss. He uses the example that when people are diagnosed with cancer (or any terminal illness) they experience firsthand what it means to deprive someone of their life and future. The experience of a premature death is one of the hardest challenges to face. This argument supports why abortion is immoral because we get to form a picture of what a fetus would feel if it was aware of what was happening, and Marquis uses pathos to helps create a deeper understanding and a paint a picture that everyone could understand. Even though many argue a fetus is not yet a person...
One of the most disputed subjects into day’s society is abortion. Children have been sacrificed by millions of women all across the world. There’s always a powerful urge to vindicate the suffering, emotional pain, and deprivation by the mother and her significant other. Therefore, in any debate, you will run up against an invisible brick wall. Which means even the greatest Knowledge will neglect to influence. When it comes to abortion the best way to tackle the subject is through facts. Some of the wondrous arguments stem from the law, science, and the rights women have to aid the pro-life case opposed to abortion.
When looking at the development of abortion policy, it is clear that it has always been a subject of controversy. Campaigns for the legalisation of...
Abortion is an issue which separates the American public, especially when it involves the death of children and women. When an abortion occurs, the medical doctor removes the fetus from the pregnant woman. This particular act has separated the public. Many believe that abortion is not morally and ethically correct. On the other hand, some people believe that carrying and delivering the unborn child will hinder the safety of the mother, then an abortion is needed. Each view has its own merit in the debate. This debate has separated the public into two sections: pro-life and pro-choice. A pro-lifer opposes abortion, whereas, a pro-choicer believes that the decision to abort the child should be left to the mother because she is the one carrying the child. In this paper, there will be topics that will be discussed concerning pro-life and pro-choice. I hope at the end of this paper, the reader is able to gain more knowledge concerning each topic. Every woman has the right to control her own body.
Abortion is a voluminous topic today all around the world. Differing viewpoints on abortion are recognized in politics, religion, and throughout the general population. There is a small amount of people who are nonchalant on the subject. Women have abortions for many different reasons and according to certain groups these reasons are either justified or not. Everyone tends to have their own articulated opinion, and many vocalize tenaciously what they believe. Pro-life individuals along with religion are sanguine that abortion is ethically and morally erroneous. Whereas those who are pro-choice say that abortion is inconsequential and the mother’s choice is more important than the fetus. Reasons to not get an abortion include risks involved in receiving an abortion. In some cases death can occur. However, there are other alternatives to abortion. For example, raising the child and adoption.
Over the course 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 regard to her reproductive rights.
The permissibility of abortion has been a crucial topic for debates for many years. People have yet to agree upon a stance on whether abortion is morally just. This country is divided into two groups, believers in a woman’s choice to have an abortion and those who stand for the fetus’s right to live. More commonly these stances are labeled as pro-choice and pro-life. The traditional argument for each side is based upon whether a fetus has a right to life. Complications occur because the qualifications of what gives something a right to life is not agreed upon. The pro-choice argument asserts that only people, not fetuses, have a right to life. The pro-life argument claims that fetuses are human beings and therefore they have a right to life. Philosopher, Judith Jarvis Thomson, rejects this traditional reasoning because the right of the mother is not brought into consideration. Thomson prepares two theses to explain her reasoning for being pro-choice; “A right to life does not entail the right to use your body to stay alive” and “In the majority of cases it is not morally required that you carry a fetus to term.”