In this paper I will discuss Don Marquis’s essay “Why Abortion is Immoral” and Judith Jarvis Thomson’s objections to Marquis’ argument against abortion.
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:
P1) If it is immoral to kill an adult human because you discontinue their ability to experience a future, then abortion is immoral.
P2) It is immoral to kill an adult human because you discontinue their ability to experience a future.
C) Abortion is immoral.
Since Marquis’s conclusion that abortion is immoral is guaranteed by the truth of preceding premises the structure of
…show more content…
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 his second premise Marquis expands on the idea that the killing of an adult human is a serious moral wrong because by killing them you deprive them of future experiences. He believes that by killing someone you cause “the greatest possible losses on the victim” and supports this idea with the example of terminally ill patients who feel their they are being robbed because their premature death prevents them from enjoying their future (190). Additionally, Marquis challenges the idea that killing someone simply because they are biologically human with the example of intelligent aliens (191).
Though Marquis does provide a logical argument against abortion it is now without its
…show more content…
Thomson provides the example of being hooked up for nine months to provide dialysis to an ailing violinist to expose how a fetus’s right to life does not supersede a mother’s right to make medical decisions about her body (48-49). I find that this thought experiment especially helpful in understanding how even though a fetus does have a right to life, because the continuation of their life hinges on the consent of their mother to use her body, it falls to the mother to choose whether or not to allow the fetus to develop to term.
Another instance of how someone’s right to bodily autonomy can surpass the right to life can be understood when thinking about end of life scenarios. Marquis’s argument suggests it would be immoral for a doctor to take a comatose patient off life support, even if the patient previously arranged to be taken off life support. Following Marquis’s logic because a person in a vegetative state could theoretically wake up in the future, a doctor would be obligated to keep them on life support against their wishes. Additionally, as Marquis briefly mentions in his paper, people suffering from terminal illness must also be denied euthanasia (197). In find it troubling that Marquis seems to have arbitrarily decided that even adult human beings do not have the right to make medical decisions that would greatly lessen their suffering. Additionally, Marquis’s argument also suggests that committing suicide would not only be immoral,
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.
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...
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.
Thomson’s main idea is to show why Pro-Life Activists are wrong in their beliefs. She also wants to show that even if the fetus inside a women’s body had the right to life (as argued by Pro – Lifers), this right does not entail the fetus to have whatever it needs to survive – including usage of the woman’s body to stay alive.
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.
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.
“A Defense of Abortion” is a philosophy paper by Judith Jarvis Thomson in which the author argues for abortion, using several analogies to illustrate her points. In a move that separates this paper from the bulk of others on the same topic, Thomson grants at the start of the paper that a fetus has the right to life. She then proceeds to argue that although a fetus has a right to life, that right does not trump a woman’s right to her body. She concludes that abortion is an acceptable choice in a variety of circumstances.
Mary Anne Warren and others argue for a liberal position on the abortion debate. A liberal view of abortion is roughly thought of as an idea that abortions should be able to be terminated at any stage in the pregnancy. In this paper, I will argue a defense of abortion, or a liberal view of abortion, using utilitarianism. I will then respond to a counterargument about the moral worth of the fetus. I will respond to this objection by looking at a strong argument by Marquis.
Don Marquis, on the other side of the abortion debate begins his essay “Why abortion is immoral” through the frustration of little support being given to the thought. This essay was writen to show the falsified belief that an anti-abortion stance is nothing other than irrational religious dogma or a conclusion generated by a seriously confused philosophical argument. The argument is set forth throughout that abortion is, except in rare cases, seriously immoral. This essay sets forth the belief that abortion is in the same category as killing an innocent adult human being. this reading fails to provide any argument for the “hotly debated” abortion circumstances such as : abortion before implantation, abortion due to
Don Marquis’s opposes Tooleys view. He argues that abortion is, except possibly in rare cases, seriously immoral, and that it should be placed in the same moral category as killing an innocent human being (Marquis, 1989 p. 183). His belief is that killing someone is wrong because the victim suffers the greatest loss one can suffer, the loss of life. This loss deprives one of all experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments that would have constituted as ones future (Marquis, 1989 p. 189). Marquis’s argument is summarised below;
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]
An argument against the viewpoint of Marquis’s is in the situation where the mother's life is at risk when it comes to continuing the pregnancy. Marquis would argue that by getting an abortion you are murdering the fetus and taking away their chance at a future (Marquis, 184). Thomson would counter argue by saying that it is the mother's right to her body to decide between herself and her child’s life. This extreme situation in my opinion should be an exception and considered an extreme case to Marqus. But he would still argue that the fetus has just as much of a right to be saved because they have the absolute right to have what we have. Even if the mother’s life was at risk Marquis would still choose to continue the pregnancy based on the
“Is abortion moral or immoral?” We yet have not acquired an answer to this question. Infer by that, we defend about the nature and the moral status of the fetus. In the other word, should we or should we not? Don Marquis as well as Bonnie Steinbock embraces with the argument of their own, which point out the morality of abortion.
A. Why Abortion Is Immoral. The Right Thing to Do: Basic Readings in Moral Philosophy. New York: Random House, 1989. 85-91. The 'Secondary' of the 'Second Print.