Marquis's Arguments On Abortion
The first argument is by J.J Thomson regarding abortion when it happens during consensual sex. She says that the woman has no obligation to keep the child, even though the woman had consensual sex and understood that she could become pregnant. Marquis talks about how everyone has a FLO account, and abortion would be killing, and killing causes premature death, so therefore, he believes that abortion is immoral in all cases including consensual sex. Judith Jarvis Thomson gives an analogy when it comes to consensual sex. If the room is stuffy, and you decide to open a window, and a burglar crawls in, you have to let him stay, since you opened the window. The window being open is a voluntary act of letting someone in, so you're obligated to let
…show more content…
The pro-choicers believe that the fetus is not a person, it’s not a social being. Both sides believe they are right, but neither side can be 100% proven right. This brings the argument to a standstill. Marquis gives us a different argument viewpoint, and he gives us the following: He starts out by arguing about why killing a fetus is wrong. He mentions three things that could possibly define a human. 1. It has a concept of self, and persists through. 2. It desires its continued existence. 3. It is rational, can set goals for its future life. He shuts them all down pretty quickly, though. For one, he says: if someone who isn’t aware of himself, maybe they’re in a coma, then would that make them not a person? And two, if someone is seriously depressed and suicidal, would killing them be alright since technically, they have no desire to continue their existence as a person? Three, maybe someone is mentally unable to plan things for their future, would that make them not a person and killing them would be moral? Marquis argues that those three things cannot define what a person is. He also mentions three other things, 1. The loss it (the killing) would be for the victim's family and friends. 2. The brutalization of the killer. 3. The loss of a future biological life. For one, he says that this can’t account for people such as hermits, who have no family or friends, so that can’t define a person, and therefore it wouldn’t be okay to kill them. He then says that there are drawbacks to this that he wants to avoid discussing. So then he jumps to the FLO account, He believes that everyone has a FLO account, which stands for Future Like Ours. The FLO account are all the things that people could potentially experience in their lifetime, and if you kill a person before it is their time, then they can’t
The pro-choicers believe that the fetus is not a person, it’s not a social being. Both sides believe they are right, but neither side can be 100% proven right. This brings the argument to a standstill. Marquis gives us a different argument viewpoint, and he gives us the following: He starts out by arguing about why killing a fetus is wrong. He mentions three things that could possibly define a human. 1. It has a concept of self, and persists through. 2. It desires its continued existence. 3. It is rational, can set goals for its future life. He shuts them all down pretty quickly, though. For one, he says: if someone who isn’t aware of himself, maybe they’re in a coma, then would that make them not a person? And two, if someone is seriously depressed and suicidal, would killing them be alright since technically, they have no desire to continue their existence as a person? Three, maybe someone is mentally unable to plan things for their future, would that make them not a person and killing them would be moral? Marquis argues that those three things cannot define what a person is. He also mentions three other things, 1. The loss it (the killing) would be for the victim's family and friends. 2. The brutalization of the killer. 3. The loss of a future biological life. For one, he says that this can’t account for people such as hermits, who have no family or friends, so that can’t define a person, and therefore it wouldn’t be okay to kill them. He then says that there are drawbacks to this that he wants to avoid discussing. So then he jumps to the FLO account, He believes that everyone has a FLO account, which stands for Future Like Ours. The FLO account are all the things that people could potentially experience in their lifetime, and if you kill a person before it is their time, then they can’t