Don Marquis Why Abortion Is Immoral Analysis

Marquis then goes on to disassociate the ‘desire account’ as an influential element of his debate. It is pro-choice belief that takes into account it is someone’s desire to keep living that makes it wrong to kill a person as it interferes with their direct wishes. Once again when relating this view to abortion there is an obvious logical flaw. A fetus does not have the capability to be self aware let alone able to express a desire for the continuation of its life. Dose this make the action morally permissible? If so then Marquis elaborates this idea relating it individuals in circumstances where they either do not desire the continuation of their life or they are unable to express such a desire for instance in a coma. He concedes that it is still deemed wrong to kill them even though there would be no expressed desire for life at the time of the killing. Because the argument is broad it cannot be practically applied in the case of abortion.

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.

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 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.

Marquis begins his article by exploiting the fallacies of both the pro-choice and anti-abortion standard arguments. He states that anti-abortionist claims are often too broad while the pro-choice claims are often too narrow. The issue of ambiguity also arises on both sides of the argument. The anti-abortionist position becomes ambiguous if the wrongness of killing is based on a biological trait. Marquis explains that the color of ones skin, in the anti-abortionist view, is not a reason to not kill, whereas the trait of being a human being which consists of having 23 pair of chromosomes, would make it immoral to kill. Furthermore, pro-choice arguments are also ambiguous in that it is not clear what is considered a ‘person’ using psychological criteria. According to Joel Feinberg, a person is a conscious being with a sense of self and the ability to make rational decisions, set goals, and is in control of their own

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

This essay will look at Marquis’s “future like ours” argument and challenge the premises and implications of his conclusion. I will not be considering exceptional circumstances, such as rape or major health implications, as Marquis’ focus was on general deliberate abortions. I will argue that the ideas of personhood, future-directed preferences and bodily autonomy establish a great moral difference between killing an adult and killing a foetus. In disproving Marquis’s conclusion and his counter-examples to criticisms, I will draw upon utilitarian and rights-based theories.

In Don Marquis’ essay, his goal is to argue that abortion is completely wrong. His main thesis can be summarized through one line; “Abortion, except perhaps in rare instances, is seriously wrong” (Marquis, 192). He addresses the idea that

The “future like ours” (FLO) theory is the reason why it is wrong to kill someone like us. As Don Marquis explains in his essay “An Argument That Abortion is Wrong,” the FLO theory states that if one has a chance at a future like ours and robbing one from having that chance through killing makes killing wrong. Therefore, this theory implies that most of the cases of abortion are wrong. This is because when one chooses to have an abortion it takes away one’s chance at having a future like ours thus making abortion or in other words killing a fetus wrongful for one to do as stated in the FLO theory.

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.

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

Both articles address this idea of personhood, but neither one really wins. The good thing with defining personhood biologically—saying it’s a person at conception—quantifies it…it gives a definitive time, not some subjective date when certain sentient or reasoning qualities are met, and this lessens the confusion. But I still agree somewhat with the view held by Warren that fetuses can’t reason or fend for themselves nor (until cerebral development) do really anything other than exist. So again, I don’t think either side has a stronger case, because both Warren and Marquis have points that basically offset one another.

Don Marquis’ essay, “Why Abortion is Immoral” is very different, yet similar to Thomson’s “A Defense of Abortion”. Although Marquis is opposed to the thought of abortion, he explains that it is acceptable in some cases. It is written, “It is in the same moral category as killing an innocent adult human being”. The reasons given for abortion to be acceptable are that the pregnancy or childbirth is life threatening to the mother, abortion before implantation, or abortion after a rape (pg 475). Thomson also views rape and the illness or death as a result of pregnancy or birth as acceptable reasons for a woman to have an abortion. It is obvious that if a woman did not consent to become pregnant and it was out of her control, she should be able to make the decision as to what to do with her body. In the case of the pregnancy causing harm to the mother is also reasonable because if the mother was to die during birth, could the child be promised a life equal to that of what they would have had with their mother? Marquis talks about how the death of any human being is the “greatest loss” because that person loses their whole future (pg 476). They do not receive the same chance at life as a person who

Don Marquis spearheads the potentiality argument in his essay on the immorality of abortion (Study Guide, pp. 167-73), claiming that it is impermissible because it deprives the foetus of a “future like ours,” and is consequently morally on par with killing a healthy adult (Study Guide, p. 170). Despite Marquis’ claims that his argument combines the best aspects of the personhood and sanctity of life ideas to produce a superior ethical theory on the immorality of abortion (Study Guide, p. 170), his argument features many flaws, including seemingly ad hoc explanations to avoid speciesism (Study Guide, p. 169) and exclude contraception (Study Guide, p. 173), and, most prominently, ill-defined terminology. His entire argument centers on the value of a “future like ours” and yet he fails to define what exact quality makes such a potential future valuable, giving only a vague indication that it is somehow different to personhood. The vagueness of what is essentially the key to his entire theory makes it difficult to accurately dispute his claims, yet he concedes himself that his theory is simply an indirect and unconvincing way of reaching the same conclusion as the personhood argument (Study Guide, p.171). His conclusions are in essences the same as those drawn from the personhood argument, it argues that foetuses should be granted legal personhood based on

In his essay "Why Abortion is Immoral," Don Marquis argues against the morality of abortion on the premise that the value of a fetus' future is so great that it is immoral to take that potential future away from it. Essentially, he contends, abortion is tantamount to murder: killing an individual is prima facie wrong because the loss of the goods of one's future is the worst loss a human can suffer. He calls this potential future a "future-like-ours," which is the basis for his contentions. In the next few pages I will delineate the general progression of his argument, and later, will evaluate the plausibility of said argument. Though Marquis makes both logical and compelling claims, there are