More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical dilemmas in abortion practice
Ethical dilemmas in abortion practice
Ethical dilemmas in abortion practice
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Helen Hu
The article “Why Abortion is Immoral” by Don Marquis is an argument which takes the side of pro-life rather than pro-choice in the abortion argument. This argument is countered by another article titled “Sensationalized Philosophy: A reply to Marquis’s ‘Why Abortion is Immoral’” written by Anne E. Cudd. Don Marquis’s uses his “future-like-ours” argument to explain why abortion is wrong. He breaks down the morality of abortions by discussing essentially what an abortion is – murder. Marquis explores why society views murder as criminal and that it because it is stealing one’s future. Essentially, he argues that killing anyone is wrong because it robs them of their future. Thus, abortion is stealing the future of the unborn fetus also
…show more content…
morally wrong. Anne E. Cudd’s article counters Marquis’s argument by bringing up the woman carrying the fetus, and how she is affected negatively. Marquis makes a strong argument by relating to the reader specifically.
The article strikes a personal chord by forcing one to determine the value of a life. It made me think about how much I value my own life and my potential future. I, like most other people, put high value on my own life. Being and staying alive is, if not the most important, one of the most important priorities in my life. The only thing I can think of that even has a possibility of being more important is perhaps the lives of my family and loved ones. But even then, all of it revolves around the value of human life and preservation of their future. Thus, Marquis’s argument made me wonder what right I have to take away one’s life, for there is no arguing that abortion is stealing somebody’s …show more content…
future. As someone who had always firmly been on the pro-choice side, “Why Abortion is Immoral” left me confused and questioning myself for a second.
However, after reading “Sensationalized Philosophy: A reply to Marquis’s ‘Why Abortion is Immoral’” and putting more thought into the topic, I still wholeheartedly support pro-choice. One excerpt from Cudd’s article solidified my standing. The excerpt stated that a pro-life argument would only make sense if, “it [was] as if fetuses were things growing out in the garden, and the question of abortion were whether one may decide to till them under rather than let them come to fruition… abortion inextricably involves (at least) two lives” (Cudd 262). Abortion is not only about the fetus but also the woman who carries it. If abortion only had to do with the fetus then a pro-life stance would make sense and the future-like-ours argument would matter. A fetus is not growing on its own like a flower “out in the garden”. The woman who carries the fetus must sacrifice her own freedom and future for something that is not even alive yet and that she is obligated to spend nine months carrying and eighteen years caring for if she does not choose the route of adoption. But even so, adoption is a tough process and there are deeper emotional and physical complications involved. All of which would also devastate the woman’s
future. The argument finally becomes choosing whose future is more important - the woman, who has conscious thoughts, feelings, emotions, motivations, and everything else it means to be alive, or the fetus that has none of these aspects. The woman directly feels the pregnancy’s effects and repercussions and consciously knows what is happening to her. Her rights to controlling her own body would be singlehandedly revoked if she did not have the option for abortion. Meanwhile, how can a fetus be impacted in any way if it is not even alive? The idea of it’s future is exactly that, an idea. I do not believe one’s future can be considered real until the being itself is considered alive. Reading the two articles made me think thoroughly about the topic of morality and the right to human life. However, when forced to prioritize, I agree with Cudd’s argument and take the side of the woman. I believe that her future should be ranked above that of an ambiguous mass of cells.
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
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.
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.
Abortion is a considered a sensitive topic in society; as a result it is not frequently mentioned or discussed. However; Marquis has decided to voice his opinion on the matter.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 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
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
Why Abortion is Immoral by Don Marquis is an essay that claims that abortion is morally wrong, and uses one argument in particular to explain why. He argues that many of us would agree that it is wrong to kill a human, and if you believe that then you should also have that view on abortions. If you think killing is wrong then you think all killing is wrong and the persons biological state, whether it is when a person is a fetus, one years old, or thirty years old, makes no difference. He then explains that killing is wrong not only because it is immoral, but wrong because it deprives the victim of life and the enjoyments one would have otherwise experienced; which Marquis believes is the greatest lost one can suffer (Marquis, 189). Given certain circumstances Marquis agrees there are cases where killing is acceptable, but nonetheless it is immoral.
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.
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,
Those who adamantly oppose abortion are regarded as pro-life and those who are supporters of abortion are considered pro-choice by contemporary standards. Even among those who advocate abortion, there are discrepancies in their views such as up until what point in the pregnancy is abortion morally permissible. In my opinion, abortion is morally permissible at any stage in a woman’s pregnancy. This is ethically acceptable because a woman should have the right to control what goes on within her body. Along with this, fetuses are still far from personhood (having the qualities of a human being); therefore, we cannot liken abortion to any variety of murderous activity.