Marquis-An Argument that Abortion is wrong
In the contemporary world, abortion is and has always been a dominant topic of great controversy among many people across the globe. Proponents of abortion versus the opponents all believe that their course is the best and no one is ready to concede defeat. Currently, there are many other controversial issues emanating from the broad topic of abortion concerning the right way to go about it. Some nations such as Canada allow while others like Ireland prohibit the act of abortion and this varies from nation to nation according to the moral and legal obligations in such boroughs. Those who allow abortion base their argument on the fact that the fetus has a right to life and that abortion is against human moral responsibility and is therefore an evil vice that must be done away with. On the other hand, proponents argue that abortion morally right depending on an individual’s viewpoint. This paper presents an argument against abortion courtesy of Don Marquis, who addresses that abortion is morally and legally wrong while giving certain exceptions. Marquis defense is enormously backed by certain religious beliefs, which strongly condemn abortion claiming that the fetus has a right to life where abortion is assumed an act of taking another’s life. This is in contrary to Jarvis Thomson, who reiterates in her paper of “Defense of Abortion” that abortion is morally right as long as it is the right of the woman to exercise control over her own body. Marquis agrees to Thomson’s premise partially and asserts in his counter-argument that because Thomson concedes that the fetus has the right to life; it supersedes the right of the woman to have control over her own body.
Marquis in his essay reiterates that, morality as far as abortion is concerned goes right to the principle question of whether fetuses have are entitled to the right to life. Indeed, all humans irrespective of their gender, sex, ethnicity, age or religion has the right to life and no life is better than the other is. As such, no one can claim to be in control such that he or she decides who to die and who to live because everybody deserves an equal chance to life. Marquis states that, fetuses are creatures just like normal people who deserve to live. However, he categorically believe that there are certain cases where abortion can be considered morally right and warns against hypocrites who may resort to them as an alibi to escape the moral obligation as accrued to the act of abortion. He considers abortion as a resort in a typical case such as instances of rape, abortion where the pregnancy threatens a woman’s life, and fourteen days after conception. He acknowledges the fact that those who believe abortion is tolerable always endeavor to find a slim criterion for ownership of the right to life with the intention that fetuses will fall outside of it. This is because they assume that fetuses are irrational and unable to communicate in intricate ways like other human beings. That is, the pro-abortion say that a fetus is not human and if a woman does not feel like having the baby, she can abort at any time. Marquis also explicate that those who support abortion consider fetuses not to be human and do not have rights that accrue to other normal beings. Therefore, they do not deserve any legal protection. In addition, Marquis unravels that the proponents of abortion believe that a woman’s right to have control over her own body includes the right to abort. For the most part his persuasive argument, Marquis denounces abortion as illegal because abortion involves the act of taking someone’s life. They are innocent people like us who happened to be young and without any crime. He heightens his persuasive strategy through the use of an example of the Future Like Ours (FLO) method, where the reader is engaged into a strong emotional stance where one compares the his or her life with that of the fetus. The Future like Ours method version of the injustice of killing affirms that the loss of a future value is a misfortune, which categorizes abortion as an unjust act against an innocent life. Abortion takes away the fetuses right to enjoy a future like ours, which is wrong. Marquis manages to capture the full attention of the reader when he asserts that indeed, if we were aborted, we would definitely have missed the life experience that we have so far have. That is, we definitely would not accept if we were to be aborted, which according to him would have meant taking our life. In other words, Marquis agrees that killing would only be considered right if it is done to save another person’s life. Indeed, I agree with Marquis on his argument that abortion is tantamount to killing because of the fact that abortion defies directly the commonly accepted idea of human life sanctity, as this involves taking human life no matter how small or young it may be. The FLO method makes a lot of sense because abortion denies innocent lives from enjoying a future that we also admired. Besides, we would not like to be deprived of our future and no one will be ready to accept to be aborted if at all our mothers wanted to. This emotional argument underpins several of Marquis’ arguments against abortion.
On the other hand, Jarvis Thomson’s principle argument for abortion is based on the claim that abortion is moral because it is the right of the woman to exercise control over her own body without any legal infringement. Her argument’s variant draws a correlation between compelling a woman to carry on a superfluous pregnancy and obliging an individual’s body to be utilized as a dialysis contraption for a different person in agony of a kidney malfunction. She argues that, because it is morally tolerable for the other person to unplug and thereby cause the death of the person suffering from kidney malfunctioning, a woman is morally right to abort an unwanted pregnancy as long as she finds it uncomfortable. This premise is built on the fact that, no one is allowed or bears the right to use another person’s body if the person is not willing to do so. She argues that even though the fetus has the right to life, the right of the woman to exercise control over her own body supersedes that of the fetus, hence she considers abortion morally and legally permissible. That is, the fetus does not have a right to the mother’s body whatsoever but because the mother has the right to her body; she can do anything she wishes to the fetus irrespective of how and when she got pregnant. She admits that the doctor who is undeniably the third party has no right to choose who to kill and not to kill between a mother whose life is hanging on a spider’s thread due to the pregnancy and the fetus. The doctor is acting as and when requested by the mother to carry out the abortion. However, she reiterates that, the mother has the right and capacity to abort on her own if she feels that her life is threatened by the pregnancy. She argues that even if the pregnancy may be as a result of a voluntary intercourse, the woman can still abort to eliminate the result because she might not have accepted the outcome of voluntary intercourse.
In conclusion, this paper has explicated Marquis philosophical issue against abortion citing evidence to disapprove abortion as well as acknowledging the fact that there are exceptions. The paper unravels that Thomson’s argument for abortion is strongly contradicted with Marquis’ points against abortion. That is, Marquis points out that, the fact that the fetus is a human; it deserves to live just like any other human being. He reiterates that denying a fetus the right to life is like denying them a future that no one denied us. He says that abortion is only permissible under circumstances of rape or when the mother’s life is threatened by the pregnancy. On the other hand, Thomson argue that because the woman has a right to control her own body, the choice is hers, as whether to keep or destroy the fetus irrespective of whether her life is in danger or not.