Marquis vs. Warren in the Case Against Abortion

One of the most frequently debated topics in bioethics is the morality of abortion, or the ending of a pregnancy without physically giving birth to an infant. Often times abortions are categorized into either spontaneous, a natural miscarriage; induced or intentional, which is premeditated and for any reason; or therapeutic, which albeit intentional, its sole purpose is to save the mother’s life. It seems however that moral conflicts on issue mainly arise when discussing induced abortions. In general, people universally agree it is morally wrong to kill an innocent person and in some people’s eyes induced abortions are the intentional killings of innocent persons, thus making them immoral. However not all individuals view fetuses as persons and consequentially argue it is not morally wrong to kill them.

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.

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

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.

Mary Anne Warren argues in the position that abortion is morally permissible because the fetus is not a person therefore has no rights and not considered immoral to be killed. I shall argue that Warren’s argument in invalid since the claims of argument cannot be proven.

In Bonnie Steinbock’s essay, “Why Abortions Are Not Wrong,” she argues that abortions are morally acceptable because fetuses are non-sentient beings and therefore lack interests as well as moral status. Her first premise suggests that it is wrong to kill

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 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.

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.

Thou shalt not kill; one-tenth of what may arguably be the most famous guidelines of morality in the western culture, and also the main driving force for pro-life advocates. The argument supporting their beliefs typically starts with the premises that a fetus is a person, and to destroy or to kill a person is unethical. Therefore abortion, the premeditated destruction of a human being, is murder, and consequently unethical. I deny the fact that the fetus, what I will refer to as an embryo up to 22 weeks old, has the right to live. The opposing argument is invalid because a fetus, although perhaps a part of human species, is not formally a person. This leaves it simply to be a part of the woman?s body, whose fate lies solely in the

Based on the view that the fetus is already a small baby, some extreme anti-abortionists would maintain that abortion is impermissible even to save the mothers life. The rationale behind this view would be that the child is innocent, and killing the child would be active, on the other hand, letting the mother die would be passive. This introduces two new concepts, the first being the mother’s rights in competition to those of the fetus and the second being the question of innocence and how we would define this (Langley).

The first ethical issue will be right to life and abortion. Abortion remains controversial and a highly debated subject. The ethical debate concerning abortion is the considerations of a woman’s autonomy and the rights of the woman and the unborn child. The parent/ child relationship and assessing the best interests of potential children also provide considerable scope for ethical discussion. (Jones K, Chaloner C 2007). A factor in the ethical future of abortion is the perception of morality, or of actively ending the life of an unborn human being. This process of deductive reasoning explains the most common anti-abortion argument: First, the fetus is an innocent human being. Second, it is morally wrong to kill an innocent human being and lastly, it is morally wrong to kill a fetus. This reasoning can also be applied to support a viewpoint to those who support abortion. First the fetus has no moral status. Secondly, it is not morally wrong to destroy that which has no moral status. Lastly, it is not morally wrong to destroy a fetus.

Abortion is always argued with different cases and play a main role in medical ethics (blackwell.,p291).It is evidently reasonable for some to argue that in moral situation, abortion is a murder and it should be illegal, while others may claim that abortion is woman’s right when concerning on autonomy ( The abortion debate in Australia). Opponents of making abortion legal claim that abortion is a kind of murder on extend of moral situation. It is always regarded as a sin to kill a person who is no aggressor in most moral communities (new ethics 1). Fetus is a biologically human as it is not just a part of the mothers, such as a lung or a kidney. On the contrary, it is obvious that fetus is human due to he or she has genetic code of human and human parents as well (abortion myth p5). Moreover, it has potentiality to be a person with primary moral worth (text book p210-211). As Gillion (new ethics) pointed out, every person has his right to life, especially he is not an aggressor. This point is also been pointed by (Rebecca and john,Blackwell p204), “embryos has a right to life” .The fetus is innocent and

“Everything in the world, according to Aristotle, has a distinctive and essential function or activity.” (Weston p. 176) The function in this question is life itself. As morally rational beings the function of each life is defined. Each life in this question must be determined as a good or bad life. An innocent individual functions properly to be considered a virtuously good human being. A fetus has no good or bad to reside in its function because it has not lived in actual society. As a virtue ethicist the following must be considered: What is fair, what practices the most humility, and what is wise in the decision being made. The two lives at risk are the fetus and the person to be executed. It is not justifiable in any way to take a life. Life