Throughout Don Marquis’s article on why abortion is immoral, it is clear that he stands at a third party view on this controversial idea. Marquis is neither anti-abortion nor pro-choice, and he states different reasons why he thinks this throughout his article. Some of the reasons are that anti-abortionists’ views are too broad and pro-choicers’ views are too narrow, not enough research or factual information of the topic of abortion, and then towards the end he talks about how it may or may not be different with animals.
First, Marquis talks about anti-abortion and the problems he sees from the pro-choice side, and then he talks about pro-choice and counteracts that with the problems an anti-abortionist would see. He believes abortion is immoral; …show more content…
This happens when Marquis throws in the part about how it is wrong to take a human life; which may or may not be true, but if that is the case then killing a human cancer-cell culture is wrong. He uses that as an example, because he knows everyone will say that no killing a human cancer-cell culture is not wrong; he uses this to make a very clear point, that anti-abortion is too broad. Since he thinks this, does this make him a pro-choice? No, because he then goes on and says how a pro-choice’s argument is too narrow. A pro-choice person may say how it is only seriously wrong to kill only persons. This is the problem he finds, ‘only persons’, it says nothing about infants, young children, the severely retarded, or the severely mentally ill.
As anti-abortionist will change their view by saying it is wrong to end the life of a human being; the pro-choicer will change their view by extending the definition of a person to infants and young children. Marquis finds more and more problems with both of these views the more he keeps breaking it down. By these points mentioned above, it is clear why he is a third party view, because nothing about each view is factual and there is nothing about each view where there is actual
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
1002215550 5. Sinnot Armstrong criticizes Marquis’s article and tries to refute the argument made by Marquis in his tendentious paper “You Can’t Lose What you Ain’t Never Had”. Firstly, he points out the Fallacy of Equivocation committed by Marquis on the word ‘Loss’. The word loss has two meanings which he shows with his race example while showing the ethics of abortion. In the race example he says that if there are two people running in a race and one is faster than the other and beats him; it is a neutral loss as the person who lost was not entitled to win.
Though Barbara Hewson thoroughly demonstrates skill and knowledge in the subject of abortion, she takes the subject of many conflicts and turns it into a mess of unpersuasive words. The development of her stance on this subject shows no growth, and although she demonstrated the use of ethos, her article seems to endlessly cover the same information she had already delivered. Her use of logos and pathos is lacking, and what little use of ethos she has gives the reader only basic knowledge, and does not seem to help deliver her point. Hewson’s intended audience, based on her writing, is people of higher educational levels, or rather, those working on higher education in medical fields. Her lack of usage in basic Aristotelian rhetoric resulted
He begins with comparing pro-life and pro-choice arguments, commenting that they are largely similar and have comparable issues. Marquis points out many fallacies both parties fall subject to, such as Feinberg and Quinlan. He also accuses them of making accidental generalizations. A few pages in, Marquis begins his own analysis on these arguments.
Don Marquis’s purpose to his essay is to set out to prove that abortion is seriously wrong. He is addressing that abortion is morally wrong and should not be permitted except in certain cases. The authors thesis is “Abortion, except perhaps in rare instances, is seriously wrong”(Marquis, 754). Marquis’s purpose for exceptions or rare instances is to eliminate those instances that could be considered ethically controversial such as cases like abortion after rape or abortion during the first fourteen days after conception. Marquis provides another exception in the form of a pregnancy that could endanger a woman’s life and abortion when the fetus is anencephalic.
Mary Anne Warren’s argument for the moral permissibility of abortion concentrates on the question of personhood and humanity with reference to a common anti-abortion argument and the discussion of potential personhood. Her argument builds on the belief that fetuses are not human beings and considers humanity through certain categories one must have in order to be considered a human person. Warren’s argument is logical, however, her argument is unsound because of a series of erroneous premises. Thus, because these premises are erroneous, an Aristotelian-type argument can be constructed that properly discusses potential persons and argues against Warren, thus aruging for the moral impermissibility of abortion.
Essay On Why Abortion Is Immoral This article called “Why Abortion Is Immoral” written by Don Marquis argues and why abortion is prima facie impermissible. Marquis accesses both anti-abortion arguments and also pro-choicer’s claim to protect the legalization of abortion. My paper is going to understand and examine the the both sides arguments, and to attempt to recognize abortion is immoral.
The pro-choice/pro-life is a major argument in politics in the United States today. However it is not so simple as pro-choice and pro-life. Pro-choice has been coined to mean that women should have the right to choose abortion and it should be a legal option. Pro-life has been connected with the banning of abortion and looking at a fetus as a life so abortion is basically murder. However this pro-life view has gotten very convoluted.
There are two sides to this debate in which individuals identify themselves as either “pro-choice” or “pro-life.” Supporters classify themselves as pro-choice, and argue “that choosing abortion is a right that should not be limited by governmental or
They talked about seven lies pro-choicers believe but are morally incorrect. For example, pro-abortionist believe abortions are needed to prevent overpopulation. When in reality, America and many other countries are below the replacement rate needed to have a steady population. They provided evidence of doctors that confirm their argument that human life begins at the beginning of conception. This source is most valuable for my essay because it helped me understand the views of pro-life.
[They hope for “pro-lifers” to join pro-choice activists in preventing unwanted pregnancies.](Wolf, 1997). They feel that a common ground can be met to which these debates will no longer exist. They realize the other side’s arguments and understand some of the cruelty. They still believe in a woman’s choice but wish to prevent pregnancies all together and stop all of the arguments. Abortion has many sides, but a woman’s choice is what needs to be protected.
It is important before breaking down Hursthouses argument, to examine the basis in which she grounds her claims. We can see through her investigation her examination of whether having an abortion is something a virtuous person would do. A virtuous person therefore, is someone who exercises virtue with virtue being defined by Hursthouse as “a character trait a human
In “A Defense of Abortion,” Judith Thomson argues with a unique approach regarding the topic of abortion. For the purpose of the argument, Thomas agrees to go against her belief and constructs an argument based on the idea that the fetus is a person at conception. She then formulates her arguments concerning that the right to life is not an absolute right. There are certain situations where abortion is morally permissible. She believes that the fetus’s right to life does not outweigh the right for the woman to control what happens to her own body.
Patrick Lee and Robert George assert that abortion is objectively immoral. One of Lee and George’s main reason for coming to this conclusion is that human embryos are living human beings. This essentially validates that abortion is indeed the process of killing a human. Another main point said by the two is a rebuttal to a common argument used in favor of abortion, which states that a potential mother has full parental responsibilities only if she has voluntarily assumed them. The rebuttal to this was that the potential mother does indeed have special responsibilities to raise the child.
A second reason why abortion is wrong is because it deprives the fetus from his future. When we decide to kill a fetus then we are taking away from him a future like ours. The argument is as follows : (1) it is impermissible to kill humans, who if lived, would have a future like ours, (2) if abortion is not done, the fetus would have future as we do have, (3) so it is wrong to kill the fetus (4) therefore abortion is impermissible. A similar argument was given by Don Marquis in his article “Why Abortion is Immoral”. He stated that what makes killing wrong is neither the effect on the murder, nor the effect on the victim’s relatives or friends, but the effect is on the victim himself.
“Abortion -should it be a right of every woman in the present context- A critical analysis” 1. Introduction I elected to present my dissertation on a topic based on ‘abortion’ since it is a hidden social menace in our society. It is like an iceberg. The tip represents the reported abortions, which everyone sees.