Marquis Argument Analysis

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.

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.

When finding objections to how one considers abortion to be morally impermissible, it is clear to see that one can target flaws in the argument that if one is satisfied with themselves being terminated during their mother’s pregnancy then they must provide that courtesy to an unborn fetus. Although objections to this example are hard to come by for the person experiencing what constitutes a “good life”, it is easy to consider scenarios in which we could potentially exist in, and decide whether we would be satisfied with a future that is less than desirable (Hare, 1975). From the latter, it seems logical to argue the potential value of one’s satisfaction with future with the potential of one’s dissatisfaction of the future due to unforeseen circumstances. When considering the many undesirable potential

In his piece titled “Why Abortion is Immoral”, author Don Marquis argues against abortion primarily using a “future like ours” approach, which is essentially the idea that killing fetuses is wrong because it deprives them of their future. In this paper, I will evaluate Marquis’s views on abortion, and then I will provide my own argument on why abortion is acceptable in most cases. I will do this by highlighting how Marquis fails to consider the mother’s role in abortion. Finally, I will address concerns regarding the mother’s responsibilities in pregnancy by going over situations in which the mother has no obligation in keeping the child.

This essay will explore the morality of abortion through the use of Don Marquis’ theories, as well as comparing them to Judith Thomson in order to effectively explain and present my argument that the decision of abortion is dependent on the growth of personhood. From this, I will present my belief that abortion is morally incorrect and should not be permitted except in extreme circumstances. I intend to achieve this through supportive arguments as well as counter-arguments provided by these given authors.

Using a new and intriguing approach, Don Marquis refutes many of pro-choice claims, including the likes of Thomson and Warren, by not arguing whether a fetus is a person or if it has moral rights, but rather justifying the fact that the unborn child has a future and it would be immoral of us to deprive the child of it. Marquis makes it very clear to the readers that he in no way shape or form is for abortion, and is only okay with it under certain circumstances. Subsequent to distinctly stating his position, he explains beliefs that both pro-lifers and pro-choicers differ on which are whether a fetus is a person from the moment it is conceived and whether it obtaining more human characteristics has an effect on the decision. After carefully dissecting both sides argument logically he concludes that one side is way too broad with their statements and the other is just way too vague to make a final decision, so he looks into another aspect overall, whether the action of aborting is considered murder if at all.

In his essay Why Abortion is Immoral Don Marquis attempts to argue that abortion is almost always wrong except for a few special circumstances such as when the life of the mother is being threatened by the pregnancy. In his thesis Marquis asserts that abortion is in the same moral category as killing an innocent adult human being and the ethics of abortion is solvable. The strongest argument that Marquis presents to defend his thesis is the claim that what makes killing wrong is the loss of the victim’s future. In this paper, I will argue that this argument fails because aborting a fetus is not in the same moral category as killing an innocent adult human being.

This essay will demonstrate that Marquis’ assessment of abortion is not morally plausible because he fails to define what constitutes a valuable future. This permits room for many interpretations as to what constitutes a valuable future. While Marquis states what a valuable future is not – experiences that would be so unpleasant or painful that the fetus would benefit from being deprived of those experiences, he neglects to state what a valuable one actually entails. As such, a reasonable individual could conclude that disagreement over what constitutes a valuable future would result. Such

In §2, I will introduce Judith Jarvis Thomson's argument that abortion is all right even when the fetus is considered a person. In §3, I will object to her argument about the matter. In §4, I will give an explanation of a response Thomson could have concerning my objection to her argument. In §5, I will explain how my objection succeeds by having support from another stance.

Marry Anne Warren and Don Marquis present arguments in favor of and in opposition to the moral permissibility of aborting a pregnancy. Both raise important points, but I am not fully convinced by either argument. Warren proposes a justification for allowing abortion based on the idea of a moral community. According to this view, moral agents have an exclusive or at least preferential obligation to those entities that meet the criteria for membership in the moral community, and their rights should never be violated for the sake of an entity that is not a member. The criterion Warren chooses is personhood, which entails one or more of the characteristics of sentience, communication, reason, emotion, and so on. The essential point of Warren’s

In “Why Abortion is Immoral,” Don Marquis argues that abortion is immoral because it denies the victim, which is the fetus or embryo, of their right to a future-like-ours. He argues that killing is prima facie wrong, and that this logic can be applied to a fetus. In this paper, I will address the ambiguity within the future-like-ours theory, which I will refer to as the FLO theory, and argue that the fetus’ right to a future of value does not override and should not be prioritized over the right to a future of value for the fetus’ host, which is the mother.

Over the years, Abortion has become a political debate that has no definite argument of whether it is an act that is morally permissible or impermissible. According to Planned Parenthood, abortion is considered to be the premature ending of a pregnancy. The mother usually decides the process of ending a pregnancy within the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. In my essay - I will expand on the ideology of each philosopher’s relative importance on the topic of abortion.

In opposition Marquis take the side in his article “Why abortion is immoral” that abortion is morally impermissible. To begin his argument Marquis makes the assumption that it is typically wrong to murder an adult human being. He then poses the question, “What makes it wrong to kill”? What makes it wrong to kill is the loss of one’s life, which deprive one of experiences, activities, and projects that would have made one’s future. The same future infants and fetuses have. Therefore, making is wrong to kill them as it is to kill and adult. This conclusion is the bulk of his argument. He then goes on to consider various objections to his view. The first objection is that fetuses cannot themselves value their own futures, their futures are thereby not valuable to

While thorough, Marquis’ argument oversimplifies the comparison between the immorality of killing an innocent adult and the (supposed) immorality of killing a fetus; thus, he erroneously commits moral equivalency. Marquis equates these two creatures on the premise that both share the sufficient feature that makes killing wrong: the loss of a future of value. However, the conclusion that follows, that having an abortion is as wrong as killing an innocent adult, is not sound. Marquis neglects important considerations that make these actions morally distinct, and is therefore guilty of using a false analogy. Arguably the most morally relevant difference between these individuals, is that an adult is an autonomous being, whereas a fetus is fully dependent on the mother. Therefore, abortion is a two-person issue, and as such, we cannot evaluate a singular future-of-value as we would in an instance of an adult’s murder.

Marquis additionally augmented a practical objection to his claim. The disagreement concerns of contraception. Contraception falls into the same category of the deprivation of the future of a will be human being. Marquis said “… by insisting that contraception deprives the combination of sperm and ovum separately of a valuable future like ours…, too many futures are lost”. Therefore, contraception is also immoral. He defended with pointed out the contradiction of fertilized eggs and the un-joined of sperm and ovum that “…there is no actual subject harm…” In Marquis’s discussion, if adults have a right to live, therefore potential human being would have warranted the same equity, hence premature stage of abortion is immoral. In future-like-ours concept that actual being with potential has a right, not those possible