Don Marquis establishes a philosophical argument for his view that abortion is morally impermissible in his journal, “Why Abortion is Immoral”. In this paper, I will argue that Marquis’ argument is unsound by showing that some of his supporting premises are false and that by correcting them, the argument becomes invalid because the conclusion no longer logically follows the premises. I will start off by outlining Marquis’ argument against abortion. In his first premise, he states that “Killing me (or you, reader) is prima facia seriously wrong” (Marquis 190). His second premise is “For any killing where the victim did have a valuable future like ours, having that future itself is sufficient to create the strong presumption that killing is seriously wrong” (Marquis 195).
The status of the fetus is one of the major keys determining whether the abortion is appropriate or not appropriate, but according to Hursthouse the status of the fetus does not apply into the virtue theory. Hursthouse states, “... the status of the fetus - that issue over which so much ink has been split - is according to virtue theory, simply not relevant to the rightness or wrongness of abortion” (Hursthouse 164). Don Marquis argues that abortion is seriously wrong. Marquis does admit that his argument can include some exemptions which include such cases as
Marquis tried to defend his opinion but referring to plants as unimportant and lacking the same capabilities as humans. But in the future it will not matter which people or plants were alive. If you look back on history, it didn’t matter which people did not exist, only the people that did. Another thing to think about on the topic of history, is the extremely unsafe ways that women gave themselves abortions. Presently there are safe facilities where women can have an abortion without any risk to
Future Like Ours The two essays I will discuss are “Why abortion is Immoral”, by Don Marquis and “Killing Embryos for Stem Cell Research, by Jeff McMahan. I will illustrate the dispute of when we begin to have a future like ours between Marquis and McMahan. Marquis argues that we stay equal as a fetus to the being we are later. However, McMahn argues that we are numerically distinct from the time we are a fetus to the human being we become. The source of disagreement between Marquis and McMahan is about FLO when we start to become a human with moral status.
He thinks that fetus has the right to live and they should not be aborted because when the fetus develops, he incur all the rights which a human being should have. However, on the other hand, Bonnie Steinbock in her article “Most Abortions Are Morally Legitimate”, she says that abortions and morally acceptable because fetuses are not living beings, hence they are unconscious and don’t have any moral status because they are unaware about their interests and doesn’t feel pain or anything. She says fetuses does not have any human being rights and it depends on the mother what she wants for her body and she has all the rights to decide whether she wants to be pregnant or not because she is a living being.
Abortion is one of the most controversial topics of the century, it does not have a simple answer on whether or not is it a morally correct or incorrect thing to do. It’s very nature finds conflict with social, political and religious views which are the most difficult arguments to dispute. Thomson and Marquis both attempt to make sense of this controversial issue, and present their own scenarios which provide a deeper look into questions such as “What is a fetus?” “Is a fetus a person? Why/Why not?” and lastly, “Is abortion morally wrong?”. This paper seeks to compare both the views of Marquis and Thomson in order to answer the previous questions, and will ultimately answer the question “Who has the right to life?” from the views of Thomson
The anti-birth control argument is less centered on the actual effects and functions of birth control and instead focuses on more religious and moral arguments. The primary argument is that birth control violates “God’s plan” for a person’s life. Contraception prevents pregnancy and thus, in the eyes of some individuals, prevents the creation and start of life. Some individuals also say that contraception makes sex a more casual act. It makes sex outside of marriage much easier and makes the act something that can be done purely for enjoyment.
Alyza Ramirez Mr.kegley 3rd period 9-18-15 Abortion: Pro-Life When it comes to abortion I believe in pro-life, that abortion should be illegal in the United States. In my opinion i believe that abortions should be illegal in the United States because its not right to take a child's life even if the child was not planned, I will explain the pros and cons of having an abortion and the negative effects it has on a woman. One effect that abortion can lead to is “medical complications such as heavy bleeding, incomplete abortion, anesthesia, and in some situations death”. “It can even go as far as having breast cancer, liver cancer, or placenta previa”. Having an abortion can also lead to “emotional complications
When some people are scared of something they act strange around it. Acting strange around pit bulls might cause them to react in bad ways toward you. Just as people should not judge people based on their appearances, animals should not be discriminated against because of how they look. We need not be afraid of pit bulls. While there are some bad things about pit bulls, the positives outweigh the
Even today, there are many moral and philosophical issues that divide the United States because they create very polarized opinions and beliefs. One such philosophical issue is the moral permissibility of infanticide. Mary Anne Warren, a philosopher, presents her liberal yet controversial views on the issue of infanticide in the postscript of her article, On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion. However, the anti-infanticide arguments pose problems for Warren’s position because they justify the immorality of infanticide through the physical similarity in resemblance of neonates to human beings. These arguments also claim that the destruction of a viable infant is needless because even if the infant’s biological parents reject the infant, there are many other parents who are willing to adopt and nurture that infant.