A Defence of Abortion - Article Example

Philosophy 21st April, A Defence of Abortion This paper summarizes and critiques two arguments on abortion. The two arguments analysed are Don Marquis’ anti-abortion argument in the article “Why Abortion is Immoral”, and Judith Jarvis Thomson’s pro-abortion argument in the article article, “A Defence of Abortion”. The paper begins with a summary and analysis of the two arguments, followed by a critique of the two arguments. Let us begin by looking at Don Marquis’ argument in opposition to abortion. In the article “Why Abortion is Immoral”, Don Marquis argues that, on moral plane, abortion is on a par with killing an adult human being, except in some exceptional circumstances. In this article, therefore, Marquis advances an argument to show that, just as it is immoral to kill an adult human being, it is also immoral to abort. Before advancing his argument to show that abortion is immoral, Marquis reviews the main arguments advanced by both the proponents and the opponents of abortion. In his review of the arguments of the opponents of abortion (the anti-abortionists), Marquis argues that the main problem with their arguments in opposition to abortion is that they base their arguments on principles that are too broad. On the other hand, Marquis contends that the main problem with the arguments advanced by the proponents of abortion is that the arguments are based on principles that are too narrow. Marquis argues that both the proponents and the opponents of abortion have an arguable case, and the arguments that they advance are reasonable and compelling. This is because while the opponents of abortion demonstrate convincingly that foetuses exhibit many features typical of human beings, the proponents of abortion demonstrate convincingly that foetuses lack human features that considered necessary and important for inclusion in the moral community. For this reason, therefore, Marquis argues that the two opposed positions of anti-abortionists and pro-abortionists or pro-choicers present an intractable problem. In light of this enormous challenge, Marquis adopts a new strategy and a new argument to show that abortion is morally wrong. Marquis began by examining why killing an adult human being is morally wrong. Marquis argues in this article that killing an adult human being is wrong because it deprives them of something valuable; Marquis argues in the article that killing an adult human being is morally wrong because it deprives them of everything that they would have valued in the future. For instance, the killing of an adult human being deprives them of the goals, achievements, completed projects, and relationships. Having proved that killing an adult human being is morally wrong, Marquis argued that the same argument can be applied to foetuses. This is because, for Marquis, the foetuses have a future like ours. For that reason, therefore, Marquis argued that abortion deprives foetuses of future like ours- a valuable future that one looks forward to living. Marquis, however, argues that abortion is not wrong in all circumstances. Marquis also argues that, although, foetuses do not value their own futures and do not expressly desire their own continued existence, that, however, does not mean that the future of foetuses are not valuable; hence, foetuses should not be deprived of their futures. Having analysed and summarized Don Marquis argument in opposition to abortion, let us look at the Judith Jarvis Thomson’s argument in defence of abortion. In the article, “A Defence of Abortion”, Judith Thomson argues that, even if we agree with the anti-abortionists view that foetuses are human persons that, however, does not mean that foetuses have the right to use the pregnant woman’s body. Using the analogy of the violinist, Thomson contend that, even if foetuses are human persons, pregnant women still have the right to decide whether or not to carry their pregnancy to full term. The violinist example goes as follows. Imagine you wake up one morning kidnapped by fans of music lovers, and you find yourself plugged into a famous violinist who has a deadly kidney disease. In this case, unplugging you would mean killing the famous violist. Imagine if you were told not to mind because the violinist would be plugged to you for nine months only. Does in mean in this case, Thomson asks, that it is immoral to unplug the famous violinist leading to his death? In response to this question, Thomson argues that, even if the violinist has the right to life, the violinist, however, does not have the right to use your body. Thomson argues that it is right and praiseworthy not to unplug the violinist, but it is morally acceptable, however, to unplug the violinist. Thomson then argues that unplugging the violinist and killing the foetus are analogously similar on the moral plane. For that reason, therefore, Thomson argues that, although foetuses may be human persons, foetuses, however, do not have the right to use their mothers body, if their mothers do not wish to carry them to full term. For Thomson, the foetus’ right to life does not override its mother’s right to decide what happens to her body. Thomson, therefore, concludes that abortion is morally permissible, even if foetuses may be human persons. Having analysed and summarized Marquis’ and Thomson’s arguments on abortion, let us look critically evaluate the two arguments. A critical evaluation of these two arguments shows that Marquis’s argument is right, while Thomson’s argument is flawed. Let us first look at the main reasoning flaw in Thomson’s argument. In his defence of abortion, Thomson bases his argument on the violinist analogy. Thomson argues that, just as it is morally acceptable for one to unplug the violinist, so is it morally acceptable for one to abort or to kill a foetus. A critical look at this argument shows that the argument is flawed because it is based on a long analogy. This is because the circumstances and the reality of the violinist example and the reality of a pregnancy are quite different. The following reason explains why Thomson’s analogy is false. The example of the violinist that Thomson uses poses a real danger to the survival of the person who finds himself/herself plugged into the violinist. This is because the person plugged to the violinist will not be able to move around, and will not be able, also, to continue with his/her normal activities in life. This fact, therefore, shows that the person plugged to the violinist will be in distress for the entire period that he/she will be plugged to the violinist. In the case of pregnancy, however, one is not in so much distress, and one can move around and continue with their normal activities in life, unless if the pregnancy causes serious health complications to the mother; in this case, however, the doctor’s recommend the termination of pregnancy. For that reason, therefore, Thomson used a wrong example or a wrong analogy to compare two incomparable realities. Marquis’ argument, on the other hand, is right because Marquis’ argument is based on the fact that foetuses have a valuable future just like adult people. It is indeed an undeniable fact that, although foetuses may not value their own futures and do not expressly desire their own continued existence, foetuses, however, have a valuable future just like mature human beings. Another reason why Marquis’ opposition to abortion is right is that Marquis makes exceptions in his argument; Marquis argues that in some circumstances, for instance where the life of the mother is in serious danger due to pregnancy, abortion may be morally permissible. These facts, therefore, shows that Marquis’ argument is reasonable and based on facts, as opposed to the Thomson’s argument that is based on false analogy. Works Cited Marquis, D. “Why Abortion is Immoral”. Journal of Philosophy. Vol. 86. April, 1989. Pgs. 183-202. Thomson, J.J. “A Defence of Abortion”. Web. http://www.google.com/url?url=//spot.colorad o.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm&rct=j&q=&esrc=> Read More