Marquis Abortion Argument
In the article “Why Abortion is Immoral,” Marquis claims that abortion remains a morally wrong behavior given that the entire act involves killing or rather interfering with a being’s right to life. In other words, abortion tends to rob the future of a person (Marquis, 1989). To justify his argument, Marquis starts by presenting three various reasons, that includes;
- A fetus tends to have a future like any other person of great value. Therefore, interfering with the fetus would be depriving the future of the fetus.
- Destroying the fetus remains morally wrong
- Abortion simply means killing the fetus
In as much as Marquis insists that it is morally wrong to conduct an abortion, he gives several exceptions to conducting the process. Perhaps a major reason for some of these exceptions, according to him, is to disregard from consideration cases where ethical perspective should be debatable for clear-headed abortion opponents. Some of these cases include engaging in the abortion process after rape (Marquis, 1989). Here, Marquis claims that conducting an abortion within two weeks after conceiving is justifiable given that the fetus is less of a human. Apart from that, Marquis also claims that situations, where tolerability of abortion remains compatible with most of his arguments, can be given some exception to engage in the process. For instance, in situations where the pregnancy continuation is likely to compromise the woman’s life, the woman can be allowed to proceed with the abortion (Marquis, 1989). This is also applicable to situations where the fetus is anencephalic. Apart from the mentioned reasons, Marquis assumes that killing is generally wrong. Therefore, he fails to make an offer based on complete ethics of destroying life (Marquis, 1989). On the other hand, he does not endeavor to steadfast the general metaphysical aspects into which such an analysis of abortion ethics might lead to.
Thomson View
In line with the argument, Judith Thomson (1971) states that, in as much, it can be claimed that the fetus should always be given the right to life, such an argument fails. To justify her position in the case, Thompson uses the violinist example for some more clarification on the issue. Here, she states that a violinist that suffers from some blood condition will eventually succumb in case he is disconnected (Marquis, 1989). Further, Thompson claims that any person (violinist) always has the right to disassociate himself in case of need. In such cases, human intuition remains applicable as morality demands. She supports such a prerogative by stating that the body is always delicate. While analyzing the violinist situation, Thomson establishes the right to life that the violinist seems to be having, right from using another person’s body when indispensable to reserving one’s life (Marquis, 1989). The fact that the pregnancy situation seems similar to the violinist case, Thompson states that no one is more ethically indebted to be attached to her fetus because of law. From the Thompson’s violist case, she therefore concedes that abortion is morally tolerable or rather permissible, especially in situations where the pregnancy is after some rape ordeal.
Apart from the violist case, Thompson also uses the third party participation or commonly expanding child case to demonstrate her defense to abortion. In this case, Thompson starts by criticizing some of the strategies, which are normally used in inferring a person’s abortion rights mainly from the acceptability of third party abortion commitment. Here, Thompson argues that a woman’s abortion right remains dependent on the doctor’s readiness to conduct the process. In situations where the doctor is unwilling, it would mean that the woman’s rights are violated (Marquis, 1989). The fact that some of these rights remain dependent on another person is ethically wrong. In fact, it would be disregarding the mother’s full personhood. Eventually, it would mean that the woman’s right to her body is disrespected. To explain this further, Thompson hypothetically uses the expanding child example.
In the expanding child example, Thompson puts the reader in a situation whereby they find themselves in a trapped house that also houses a growing child. In this situation where the person is already against the house wall and nearly crushing to death (Marquis, 1989). On the other hand, the child is unlikely to be crushed to death. In this case, if the situation is not solved to stop the child from growing, the chances are that the individual at the house might end up crushing. For that matter, the individual can act in self-defense as long as he protects himself through the situation. Such a case is therefore applicable in the abortion situation whereby the mother can protect herself by killing the fetus. In the end, Thompson acknowledges that no third party should determine whether the woman should kill the fetus or not.
Marquis’s arguments challenge those of Thompson
There is an obvious clash of opinions between Marquis and Thomson. From both positions, it remains evident that Marquis is challenging Thompson’s views regarding the abortion issue. Whereas Marquis claims that abortion remains a morally wrong behavior given that the entire act involves killing or rather interfering with a being’s right to life, Thompson claims that abortion is morally tolerable or rather permissible. From the analysis, Thompson manages to draw some arguments regarding pregnancy (Marquis, 1989). In as much as a fetus makes use of a person’s body for supporting its life, a pregnant woman is unlikely to do the same (Marquis, 1989). However, abortion opponents might draw more debates based on the fact that through the process, the fetus’s life is the one that is lost and not the woman’s life. In the end, Marquis and Thompson symmetry seems to create some standoff based on the issue.
A clash of thoughts in this debate is initiated when both personalities make different claims regarding the fetus’ right to life. Thompson insists that the fetus’s right to life fails to entail its need or rather the right to use the mother’s body while preserving its own life. However, Marquis, who is clearly an abortion opponent, seems to insist that the woman’s right to use her personal body fails to entail her right in ending other person’s life because it is her body. Further, Thompson is of the argument that a woman’s right to control her body is not necessary applicable especially if it is immoral for her to engage in actions, which would end the fetus’ life. The consequence of both symmetries enhances some standoff. However, in case both personalities have the standoff in their abortion debate, then one might claim that there is an obvious conflict of rights, thus a feta’s right to life against a woman’s right to control their own body.
Reference
Marquis., D. (1989). Why Abortion is Immoral. Published by: Journal of Philosophy, Inc. DOI: 10.2307/2026961. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2026961