Introduction
There are enduring questions between Judith Jarvis Thomson who is for abortion and Don Marquis who is against the same. In her support of abortion debate, Thomson disapproves the right to life for a fetus by use of another person’s body. Thus, by removing the unborn there is no violation to the right to live but merely deprives the fetus freedom to use the mother's body of which he holds no right to. On the other hand, Marquis is offers a conflicting opinion on the same case. Marquis argues that the only way a new soul could face its way into the world is through the process of conception. Therefore, the entire process should be followed to the end (LaFollette, 2014). He argues that if killing an individual is wrong since it divests them their future, then the same should be applied to depriving the fetus’ future. In this twofold analysis, the discussion will critique Thomson’s fetus case from the perspective of the fetus right to live as well as the set of communal moral rights in relation to humanity. In same breadth, a critique on Marquis’ argument will focus on the collective right of adult freedom against unborn and death not being sufficient to be a source of the right to live.
Body
Thomson’s view on abortion
View on fetus
In her argument, Thomson makes it clear that abortion can be tolerable with most of his conclusions outlining the practices that would permit abortion. In her construction of the argument, she creates a scenario where a fetus becomes the primary objective of abortion to happen or not. Thomson thinks that arguing in line with the personality of the fetus to permit or un-permit abortion is ill-advised.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Right to life
In her essential argument, she outlines that the right to life should always weigh any other freedom with which it could conflict (LaFollette, 2014). She designs an experiment to show probable cases where abortion is tolerable, with scenarios outlining how the action could be taken to justify one own freedom although doing so infringe an innocent individual right to live. In the case of a violinist, Thomson tries to display that right to life means one is allowed the freedom to do whatever is they need to maintain individual’s life.
Thomson conclusion
Thomson in her argument tries not to support rights to unlimited abortion and explicitly discards the claim that it is right for pregnant women to get rid of their offspring’s. In her argument, she explains on freedom of the mother to terminate her pregnancy, even if it would result in the death of the fetus, but not on the right to create death of the unborn
Critique of Thomson’s Argument on Fetus
Ethical problems.
Fatal to family morals
Thomson’s assertion to give an individual a special obligation to make decisions on the offspring and family is ill advised. The decision on abortion should be shared among family members as it affects the whole family unit (Thomson, 1996). It is understood that there needs to be a special consideration in committing an individual to make an explicit decision that would be fatal to the family’s morals.
Fetus right to mothers body
The second critic is on the nature of the unborn right to the mother's body, which is a special obligation and an apparent entity of the unborn meant to be voluntarily accepted. The entity, however, can be argued to be exceptional when the life of the mother is in a threat. Unlike her argument from the violinist, where she is attached to another person to save her life, making it naturally dependent on a specific human being, the unborn through a natural stage of development is dependent on her mother.
Unborn withholding of treatment and termination.
Although Thomson makes it clear that there are times when medical treatment is morally justified, there is a great deal of difference between abortion and violinist unplugging. In the case of a violinist, the individual who withholds assistance is not directly responsible for the dependent death, but the mother is accountable for her unborn.
Ideological problem
Use of burden of pregnancy inconsistently
In her argument, Thomson tries to portray pregnancy as the involuntary imprisonment of nine months given to a woman. Unlike her violinist experience, very few women are bedridden, and pregnancy cannot be outlined as sickness.
Inconsistency with agenda of radical feminism
The Thomson argument seems to work against the principle of radical feminism with the illustration seeming to apply for women control that lack morals, by advocating for violence against the tiny, feeble and dependent infant.
Marquis non-religious argument on abortion
Fetus termination argument
Putting forward an argument against abortion that is non-religious, Marquis claims it is morally equal to killing a human being and terminating the unborn. In his argument, he summarises that an unborn future consists of everything that an adult future entails given that the fetus would develop into an adult. In his conclusion, termination of a fetus removes valuable future as it is the case with an adult who is killed. The removal of future of value as Marquis put it is a great wrong which should be categorized in the same moral category as termination of adult human being who is innocent.
The moral status of the argument
Marquis argues and tries to prove abortion as morally wrong and should only be allowed in the strictly exceptional cases. He refers to Thomson view on the right to life and thinks that the freedom of life overrides the freedom of individual body control. Thus, having an abortion is wrong. He argues that the moral of abortion hides the truth on the question of the fetus having the right to life.
Critique of Don Marquis
Marquis essence argument
In the debate over abortion, Marquis has pointed out that, partisan sides have based the notion of personhood making his contest to result in a standoff (Marquis, n.d). He has been able to defend his argument against various objections, pointing out the facts that the unborn may not be as an adult individual but there is an identical relationship between the fetus and an individual.
Equality objective
Woman right
Marquis’s argument seems to be future-oriented giving no little or no weight to the right of individuals involved or equality objective. In the argument, the woman’s freedom to her body seem to be ignored.
Future objective
Marquis argument seems to emphasize more on the future, ignoring the present. In my understanding, an adult’s future does not become permanently dependent on the immediate current fetus due to their unique entity. In this, one can assert that the fetus cannot be treated as a living individual. Therefore, it is not identical to an adult. In a real sense, adults have mental lives that make them individuals while the fetuses lack the same. It can be argued that they are both biological organisms but the objective in question concern specific properties.
Marquis personhood objective
In his argument on personhood, Marquis has had a problem in explaining the counter-argument to FLO1. In the objection, it can be asserted that in the use of his Phrase of personhood account, a better explanation is provided regarding the immoral of killing adults in the account of our future likeness. By the account of parenthood, adults are given a moral standing which makes it incorrect to terminate them in their self-ethics control in relation to abilities and mental conditions.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the paper has argued in contrast to Thomson support of abortion. An individual possesses the responsibility for making presence the fetus, through voluntary engagement in intercourse and having full knowledge of the results. It is their moral responsibility toward the pregnancy, although she tries to show underlying accountability as a result would not bear on an individual having moral engagements. Regarding Marquis’ view, the discussion has argued on his failure to deliver what he proposes in the account of the essence of the immorality of killing. The debate has also outlined marquis response on personhood as being not persuasive.
References
LaFollette, H. (2014). Ethics in Practice . Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.
Marquis, D. (n.d.). An Argument that abortion is wrong . Retrieved from http://web.csulb.edu/~cwallis/382/readings/160/marquis.html.
Thomson, J. J. (1996). A defense of abortion. In R. Munson. (Ed). Intervention and reflection: Basic issues in medical ethics (pp 69-80). Belmont: Wadsworth.
