Analysis Of Why Abortion Is Immoral By Don Marquis

Do people deserve to die? This is the question that society has had us ask ourselves for many years. The speaker argues that the real question surrounding the death penalty is, “Do we deserve to kill?”

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.

On one end of the argument is the belief that all human lives are of equal merit, because they are humans it gives them equal merit. Therefore no human should ever take the life of another, even if that individual has taken other lives. This argument is mostly favored by people of religious faith, but there are some sensible individuals who also adhere to this as an ethical position. At the other end of the spectrum is an argument in favor of the death penalty because of its ability to get rid of a problematic human so that they will be able to do no more harm. This is a very utilitarianism-like perspective of the death penalty. To examine this perplexing ethical dilemma one must first figure out their stance on what death is, like Socrates would.

In Judith A. Thomson’s article, ‘A defense of abortion’ Thomson defends her view that in some cases abortion is morally permissible. She takes this stance even with the premise that fetuses upon the moment of conception are in fact regarded as persons. However one criticism of her argument would be that there is a biological relationship between mother and fetus however there is no biological relationship between you and the violinist. Having this biological relationship therefore entails special responsibility upon the mother however there is no responsibility in the case of the violinist. Thomson argues against those who are opposed to abortion with her violinist thought experiment.

The topic of Abortion is a topic discussed globally around the world. In today’s times, it is one of the most controversial topics, is abortion moral or immoral? Philosopher Don Marquis states, “abortion is, except possibly in rare cases, seriously immoral, that it is in the same moral category as killing an innocent adult human being…” (Marquis 223). When viewing the readings of Philosopher Marquis, it seems that abortion is immoral but when you look at what Philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson has to say, who doesn’t agree with the fact that abortion is immoral and gives great examples to back up her claim, you begin to think so what is abortion, moral or immoral? Both Philosophers have very strong arguments to back up their claims but I’m

Marquis thinks that premise one is true because killing in particular “deprives the victim more than perhaps any other crime” (Marquis, 1989, pg. 190). The reason that killing is wrong, Marquis thinks, is because of the innate badness that death brings via depriving something of a future. It is this depriving of a future that Marquis uses to motivate the rest of his argument, and why killing is bad. The second premise is true to Marquis because it is “having a future like [ours] is what makes killing someone wrong” (1989, pg. 191). The key phrasing here is that a future like ours (FLO) extends to something that can grow to value a future much like our own, therefore, giving a fetus FLO. Finally, Marquis finds the third premise is true because, abortion is killing off a being that can develop into having a FLO. It also does not even have to do with the fact it will be human, but merely because it could have a FLO (Marquis, 1989, pg. 191). Marquis has already provided that death has an intrinsic quality of depriving a future (pg. 190), so he makes a reasonable connection that killing is bad, and therefore, abortion is equivocal to killing because it causes death, which then deprives the fetus of a FLO (Marquis, 1989). Naturally, the conclusion must be true that aborting a fetus is impermissible after following the truths of premises

Marquis brings up the idea of “Future like ours” (FLO). He claims that killing deprives a person of a future that is like ours, and says that abortion is killing a fetus that will have a future like ours. Taking someone’s entire future away from them is the worst of crimes, and he argues that abortion is this kind of deprivation of future. Killing an adult is an awful thing to do because it takes away that adult’s future, a future that is of great value. The same goes for aborted fetuses—they had a future that would be valued but it was taken away from them.

Marquis contends that abortion is impermissible, he expresses that executing adults isn't right since it treacherously denies them from their potential future and fetus removal is denying the fetus of their future, in this manner fetus removal is impermissible. "The loss of one's life is one of the best misfortunes one can endure." (p. 367). He goes one to state, that it is indecent however there are uncommon situations where it may not be. In agreement to Marquis contention, I trust that abortion is unethical in light of the fact that the baby can possibly be a feasible piece of society, the embryo is a living individual, has a privilege to life.

Abortion is a polarizing issue that many have firm opinions about. Abortion is a moral issue because it involves whether or not a fetus has the right to life and if ending that life is considered to be murder or not. Don Marquis presents the argument that abortion is morally wrong because it deprives the fetus of a future. Marquis continues that any action that robs a person of a future, such as abortion, is morally wrong. Marquis’ argument for abortion is unsound, especially for cases such as rape. To illustrate, if Marquis argues that any action that robs a person of a future is morally wrong, then it follows that a woman who suffered the consequences of rape is also robbed of a potential future. It is important to consider involuntary pregnancies

If we examine some arguments presented from both sides, opponents of the capital punishment claim that executing someone is nothing more than an immoral, state-authorized killing which undervalues the human life and destroys our respect for our government which itself says that killing is wrong. But the supporters of the death penalty think that certain murderers

In 1989, Don Marquis, an American philosopher, published his paper “Why Abortions are Immoral” in The Journal of Philosophy, and his argument became widely cited and significant amongst the debate between the views of anti-abortion and pro-choice parties. This essay aims to analyze and evaluate Marquis’ paper, and also discuss how the views of immorality should translate into the laws of our society. One of the reasons why Don Marquis’ argument in “Why Abortions are Immoral” is particularly compelling is because the philosopher adopts a deductive reasoning approach and avoids traditional debate over “what constitutes as personhood”.

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

Deontologism is a school of rule-based ethics that determines whether or not an action is moral based on sets of principles or rules. These rules are fixed, and can include “it is wrong to kill” and “it is wrong to lie.” Don Marquis, who wrote “Why Abortion is Immoral” from a deontological perspective, argued that abortion is immoral, except in a few rare cases, and in order to determine why it is immoral, an account of why killing is wrong must be created. Marquis found that killing is wrong because of the dead’s loss of their future personal life. The potential for joy, great experiences, and happiness is too considerable to end prematurely. Though Marquis does not regard abortion to be the same as premature death, he regards it as causing

The premises of Peter Singer’s paper is, “when killing is, and is not, wrong.” He is stating the circumstances under which

In the article Ethics of Abortion, much of the pro life argument seems to be