On the other hand, Marquis's believes that abortion is immoral. He argues that all cases of abortion is wrong and rarely will there be special circumstances to justify the killing of a human being. In Marquis's opinion, killing a fetus is equal to killing an innocent adult life. His whole argument is based off a major assumption. In his debate, he focuses on the wrongfulness of killing. He creates many arguments to why killing is wrong and what makes killing wrong. With that, he applies those arguments to abortion in effort to prove that abortion is immoral. He argues take taking someone's life is frown upon because you are taking away their future. That person will never be able to experience living again and all …show more content…
Therefore, they will look into the outcomes of abortion and decide from there if abortion is good or bad.
Finally, after reading both passages I would have to say that I do not find Marquis's analysis and argument to be less persuasive. I found his ideas less clear and even a bit too repetitive. While I did like how he starts off by comparing both sides of the abortion argument, it does seem overly exaggerated. He keeps claiming the other side is wrong because of wrongful killing and picks up small flaws and turns them into major claims. I really wish he had more major opinions to add into his debate. Just because a fetus or embryo can no longer live out to grow into the human being they were meant to be does not persuade me. It would have been interesting if he could add scenarios into the argument just like how Thomson did. It would have made his essay more interesting and appealing to read as well.
Although I do not agree with his perspectives, I am sure his debate to fight abortion is one of the best and most well written. Abortion is a major controversial when it comes to morals and ethics. I have always been pro-choice. Morally I believe it is the decision of the mother of the fetus to make the decision. If she wants to abort her child then that is 100% her decision. I do not believe the law or any other parties should have the right to make that decision for her. Her right to make
When he compiles his argument he begins by providing the argument for a ‘pro-choice’ approach which makes the assumption that a fetus is a being but one who's life is not ethically applicable and can be ended without moral consequence. This gives us an insight into the apparent symmetry between this set of ideals in contrast with the beliefs of the
I could not agree more with the way you explained John Finnis’s beliefs on abortion. Before reading John Finnis’s argument I was on the fence. I could see both side of why people would think that abortion is morally correct or incorrect. Although after reading his believes I know understand why people are so against abortion. Like you said when a women become pregnant she and everyone else knows that this thing inside her will not turn into anything other than a living and breathing child. I like how you stated that Tooley’s believes were nothing but opinions. I never thought about it that way. I believe that Finnis is including facts in his argument that make me agree with him. To me Tooley’s argument is kind of absurd. When I was reading
She then reconstructs the initial argument to state that it is morally impermissible to abort a fetus if it has the right to life and has the right to the mother's body. The fetus has the right to life but only has the right to a mother's body if the mother voluntarily gives that right to the fetus. Therefore it is only in the case of voluntary pregnancy is abortion impermissible.
Marquis argument is superior to others as he avoids casuistry terms such as “human life,” or “human being” and rests on the ethics of killing, which also apply to the fetus (Gedge & Waluchow, 2012, p224). Killing a fetus denies it the right to a valuable life just as adult human beings have. This deems abortion morally wrong.
During this article he will talk about anti-abortion and prochoice, meaning one is against abortion and the other one is okay with the choice you decide to go with. Anti-abortionist believe that everything is obvious and it shows how abortion is murder. Pro choicer believe that the truth is obvious as well but abortion is not a killing. Each of these groups will claim that their reasoning behind aborting or not will either be right or wrong depending in what group you seem to represent. In the article, Marquis wrote that anti-abortionist will claim that their information supported will be morally correct because of how wrong it is to take a baby’s life. As for the pro choicer, they will claim that it is accepted by the moral values and on how it is not wrong to take a human life. By trying to correct the problems of decision making it can still lead to other problems. The anit-abortionist will try to get rid of the problem by reconciling the wrongs of killing a human. After this it can lead to “It is always prima facie seriously wrong to end a human being” (p.253). This advantage can be a bit harder to reach because it is stated in this article that a fetus is a human and alive, but it still doesn’t mean that that the fetus
Judith Jarvis Thomson and Don Marquis both have different views on abortion. Thomson believes that in some cases, abortion is morally permissible, due to the life of the mother. Marquis believes that abortion is almost always morally impermissible, except in extreme circumstances, because the fetus has a future life. I will simply evaluate each of the authors reasoning’s that defend their belief, and give my argument for why I believe Judith Thomson’s essay is more convincing.
defends that abortion is a morally sound action. Don Marquis, in his essay An Argument that Abortion is Wrong, takes the opposite stance. He claims “that abortion, except perhaps in rare instances, is seriously wrong”.
Marquis approaches his argument by considering those already put forth by anti-abortionist and pro-choice alike. He points out that both points of view focus on the status of the fetus; in particular they seek to establish whether or not a fetus is a person. He reasons that when paralleled, these arguments produce a sort of “standoff” that ultimately become more complicated and trivial (556). Looking for biological and/or physiological features to determine when a being is is a true “person” is morally irrelevant, and thus cannot
“Abortion is impermissible, because it deprives a being of a future like ours. Accordingly, it is morally similar to killing a healthy adult.”
Thomson’s argument, “A Defense on Abortion,” is a piece written to point out the issues in many arguments made against abortion. She points out specific issues in arguments made, for example, about life beginning at conception and if that truly matters as an argument against abortion. Thomson uses multiple analogies when making her points against the arguments made against abortion. These analogies are used to show that the arguments made do not really make sense in saying it is immoral to have an abortion. These analogies do not work in all cases, and sometimes they only work in very atypical cases, but still make a strong argument. There are also objections made to Thomson’s argument, which she then replies to, which makes her argument even stronger. Her replies to these arguments are very strong, saying biology does not always equate responsibility, and that reasonable precaution is an important factor in the morality of abortion. There are some major issues in her responses to these objections.
Lastly, Marquis offers an analogy, the analogy with animals. He goes to show that humans are not the only living things that can suffer. That the suffering of non-human animals is wrong, and thus inflicting pain, whether it is towards a person or non-person is wrong. To deprive someone of a future value is a misfortune no matter whom the deprivation in inflicted on. This analogous argument goes to show that abortion is wrong by taking the same form of this argument for that causing pain and suffering to non-human animals is wrong.
In “A Defense of Abortion” by Judith Jarvis Thompson, Thompson works to argue that even if a human fetus is considered a person, abortion is still often morally permissible. This paper will work to explain Thompson’s positions on the different accounts of the right to life, and to provide an evaluation of them and explain why they are not plausible, specifically regarding three of the analogies on-which she based her entire argument: the violinist, the coat, and the case of Kitty Genovese, as well as to explore a logical counterargument and explain why it’s stance is impermissible.
Don Marquis starts off his essay stating that most anti-abortion arguments are often thought of as of “irrational religious dogma or a conclusion generated by seriously confused philosophical argument.” (Marquis, p 183). He goes on to say that his essay will show abortion is seriously immoral and in the same moral category as killing an innocent adult human. Marquis then deconstructs typical arguments made both for and against abortion. He disagrees with the common arguments made by the anti-abortionist because the moral principles they use are often too broad in scope. Marquis draws parallels between the typical anti-abortionist arguments and the standard pro-choice arguments. For example, he notes the anti-abortionist will often make the claim that life is present at conception or the fetus looks like a baby and therefore it is a human being with a right to life. Regarding the pro-choice arguments Marquis notices similar arguments in the other direction. For example, the pro-choicer will claim the fetuses are not persons. Marquis notices there is too much ambiguity in the arguments of both sides. Marquis says that the moral claims made by each party do not do a good job touching the essence of the matter. Marquis then goes on to state that in order to understand why abortion is wrong we must first find out why it is wrong to kill us. He arrives at the conclusion that it is wrong to kill us because it deprives us our future. Marquis argues that since a standard fetus has a future just like a child or an adult
In the article, “Why Abortion Is Immoral”, Don Marquis begins his discussion by arguing that standard arguments or standard explanations for and against abortion are rather similar and fairly unsophisticated. He states that the debate has become “intractable.” In the sense that the two sides of the issue have become a dug-in and no one is willing to listen to the other side at this point meaning that it is an entrenched opinion. He argues that we need a fresh start to the issue a better way to think about wrongful killing, in the philosophical literature is something debated that whether wrongful killing such as murder is bad because of the effect on the murderer or the effect on the society or the effect on the victim.
Reading these two journals was very thought provoking on both sides. I applaud both Thomson and Marquis for how they presented their belief and evidence the used. Thomson defends abortion (certain cases I am perceiving) even when the fetus is considered living being. While Marquis explains why abortion is immoral and discusses that the fetus still has a right to live. I don't believe I have seen discussion where the pro-choice or pro-life where they take a stance or scenario that is typically against their "groups" choice. I thought it adds more depth and leads to a more thought provoking discussion. Both journals in my view where respectable and done in a professional manor, which can be hard to find sometimes