Did Marquis Outweigh Thomson on his Essay why Abortion is Immoral?

The debate over the morality of abortion has been a cornerstone of bioethical discussions for decades. Among the most influential contributions to this discourse is Don Marquis’s essay, “Why Abortion is Immoral,” and Judith Jarvis Thomson’s “A Defense of Abortion.” While both thinkers approach the topic from philosophical perspectives, they present contrasting arguments regarding the essence of the right to life and bodily autonomy. This essay will explore the core arguments of Marquis and Thomson and assess the weightiness of Marquis’s stance compared to Thomson’s.

Marquis’s “Futurist” Argument

Don Marquis’s essay revolves around a central argument: it is fundamentally wrong to take a life because doing so deprives an entity of its future. According to Marquis, what makes killing us wrong is the loss of all the value-laden experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments that would have constituted one’s future personal life. He calls this the “future-like-ours” argument. By this account, abortion is immoral because it denies the fetus a future of value similar to ours.

Marquis effectively side-steps the common debates around when life begins. Instead, he contends that even if we don’t know exactly when a fetus becomes a person, it has a future filled with experiences and potential, just as adults and children do. By equating the loss experienced in killing adults with that of aborting a fetus, Marquis presents a robust case against abortion from a standpoint that is not strictly tied to religious or traditional pro-life arguments.

Thomson’s Bodily Autonomy Argument

On the other hand, Judith Jarvis Thomson offers a series of thought experiments in her essay, the most famous of which is the “Violinist Analogy.” In this scenario, you wake up to find yourself connected to an unconscious famous violinist. Without your body, the violinist will die. Here, Thomson parallels pregnancy, especially cases of unwanted pregnancies due to rape. She argues that even if we grant the fetus the right to life, it does not necessarily have the right to use another’s body to sustain that life.

Thomson acknowledges that the fetus might have a right to life but posits that this right does not override a woman’s right to control her body. She asserts that the mother’s right to bodily autonomy may, in many cases, be more substantial than the fetus’s right to life.

Weighing Marquis Against Thomson

When juxtaposing Marquis’s and Thomson’s arguments, several considerations emerge. First, while Marquis’s future-like-ours argument is compelling, it presupposes that the potential for a valuable future is enough to grant moral rights to a fetus. Critics argue that potentiality does not equate to actuality. Just because a fetus has the potential for a future like ours does not mean it currently possesses the value of a full-fledged human being.

Thomson’s argument resonates more with real-life situations women face. The bodily autonomy argument highlights the complex and multi-faceted nature of abortion decisions. While Marquis’s stance provides a more overarching moral reason against abortion, it somewhat overlooks the intricate dynamics in a pregnant woman’s life.

Final Thoughts

The ethical discourse on abortion, as evidenced by Marquis’s and Thomson’s essays, is intricate and multi-dimensional. Marquis anchors his argument on the potential value of a future, providing a fresh perspective on why abortion might be deemed immoral. Conversely, Thomson emphasizes women’s real-life ramifications and choices, underscoring the principle of bodily autonomy. Both arguments are intellectually robust and present valid ethical considerations.

However, while Marquis’s perspective focuses on the potential loss associated with abortion, it may not encompass the entirety of women’s lived experiences. Thomson’s emphasis on personal agency and autonomy resonates more deeply with the complex dynamics surrounding women’s right to choose.

As the debate continues, these essays serve as foundational texts that illuminate the intricate moral landscape of abortion

Did you like this example?

254

13