Under Marquis' criteria, it is moral. The post-abortive mother woman can be found in nearly every race, religion, culture, correction facility, income-bracket, or age range. If this was the only possible consideration in the ethics of the action, I would think gnostics would support mercy-killing everyone as soon as their spirits achieved liberating enlightenment. Response: The problem here is like the problem with the Potentiality Argument. Essentially, he contends, abortion is tantamount to murder: killing an individual is prima facie wrong because the loss of the goods of one's future is the worst loss a human can suffer. He goes on to detail that this criteria of depriving a victim of a future of value can be applied in such a way as to explain why euthanasia is not immoral because the future of the one being euthanized is one of intolerable suffering. § 44 He also implicitly reveals this when critiquing a rival ethical account: One does not want the discontinuation account to make it wrong to kill a patient who begs for death and who is in severe pain that cannot be relieved short of killing.
Therefore 5 Abortion is morally wrong. As seen above, a future is not enough to save someone from being euthanized or aborted, that is only a new method to ask the question with; what makes the difference is whether the life will be on of suffering or not. So fetuses can have interests that they do not take any interest in, and killing them can be wrong. Another argument about morality and abortion would be by Judith Jarvis Thomson. However, this actually leaves us at the top of a slippery slope.
§ 49 So that they will lead lives full of pain and suffering, and at times even beg for death, is not really what makes the decision here of whether it would be ok to euthanize or abort them: what matters is their future. The morality or immorality of abortion, however, leaves an open question which also leaves the partisans reflecting on whether or not there can be a clear and evident claim of its morality or immorality, wrongness or otherwise. He needs merely to show that a sufficient condition of the wrongness of killing some being is that it deprive it of this value. Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before viability. They are based on the false assumption that the fetus is not a person. So, how would Marquis respond to a situation in which the mother will surely or even has the remote chance of dying in childbirth, even if the fetus will not? Abortion can also be argued to be seen as criminal because the unborn child is not able to defend itself at all. However, we still recognize that it is wrong to kill those that are unconscious or in a coma who have prospects of emerging out of their states , so it follows that mentation is not a necessary condition to be a victim.
He goes on to detail that this criteria of depriving a victim of a future of value can be applied in such a way as to explain why euthanasia is not immoral because the future of the one being euthanized is one of intolerable suffering. It becomes a murky and essentially taboo dilemma to even ask if the lives of these children are worth living, and if they would have been better off being aborted in the womb. There are several reasons why someone would consider abortion, but there are many reasons and alternatives not to. But both comes out with arguments that are different supporting their arguments. In light of all of this, Marquis recommends adopting a new strategy. In order for abortion to be proven either immoral or permissible he suggests that it must first be fully understood why killing is wrong.
If a parent determines that a fetus will have a life of suffering or otherwise be unable to experience a future-like-ours, then killing the fetus is not immoral by Marquis' criteria. Web Surfer's Caveat: These are class notes, intended to comment on readings and amplify class discussion. For the person who dies, b seems no worse than a. Second Timing of Death Case: a I am terminally ill with cancer, but treatment will limit my pain and I will die in six months. If it can, we will have discovered a strong reason that abortion is presumptively immoral.
This is Marquis' argument, which is the argument we considered today. Abstract Many people believe that abortion is an immoral act. They are not intended for publication or general distribution. Consider the admittedly fanciful case of a child born to a slave in a culture where slave children are slowly burned alive shortly after birth as a sacrifice - would we consider abortion acceptable in such a case? Parents want to give their children the best possible futures and parental empathy means their children's suffering is their own. To do wrong, there must be an actual individual whom we wrong, not just a potential being.
But life support can be in the interests of someone who takes no interest in it. Evidence and Analysis There have been. It concerns a person moral right to his or her body. Abortion is very simply wrong. He examines why exactly it is wrong to kill us. So, just because a fetus cannot appreciate its own future, we are aware of the value of its potential future, so abortion is still wrong.
According to him there is a standoff. This is not especially problematic until one recalls Warren's Space Explorer Thought Experiment. Society is completely aware of our ranks. There are obvious implications concerning the ethics of abortion with this theory in place. Explain which elements of your response are consequentialist, deontological or virtue-theoretic.
At the most basic level, the choice to abort a healthy fetus is an act of defense, of defending the mother's future-of-value. What makes killing any adult human being wrong? But as I have pointed out, the only possibly route to a solution in this battlefront depends on questions in metaphysics and human nature. By aborting these unborn infants, humans are hurting themselves; they are not allowing themselves to meet these new identities and unique personalities. However, there are some states that have the law called, the parental involvement law, whereby one or both parents have to consent to the minor having an abortion. Note: In calculating the moving wall, the current year is not counted. Abortion is immoral on the basis that it kills an innocent human being.
Many people who agree with abortion would disagree with Marquis that abortion is the same as killing a person, as much as killing the fetus that would later become a person. To simply want to eliminate suffering is too vague. Abortion destroys the lives of helpless, innocent children and is illegal in many countries. According him there were no laws prohibiting abortion in the United States until well into the 19th century. When a woman becomes pregnant as the result… Words 2499 - Pages 10 Abortion: The Ethical Battle Background Abortion has been around since the beginning of recorded history, but only now in the 21st century has it become something that is frowned upon.