Don Marquis Abortion Analysis
The first argument is one that takes a position to support the idea that abortion, in certain cases, is morally permissible or is acceptable to do. The argument is given by Judith Jarvis Thompson. She concedes to the idea that the fetus is a person and is given the right to life for the sake of argument and to get into the moral permissibility, or the right and wrong of each decision depending on the circumstances for having an abortion. The right to life is simply your right to live and have a life without someone taking that right from you by killing you or hindering it in some way. She concedes to the idea that the fetus is a person to bypass that argument and get into situations even assuming the the fetus is a person. Her view on abortion
…show more content…
Marquis gives a definition of abortion as being “an action intended to bring about the death of a fetus for the sake of the woman who carries it.” Marquis says that both sides of the argument can agree that everyone has a right to life. His question then becomes what it is that makes a person be identified as a person. He gives the criteria for being a person is simply being identified as biologically human. He argues that statement saying that, that criteria is too broad and his example of that is human cancer cells being identified under that criteria. Human cancer cells are obviously not something given rights thus making the criteria too broad. An example of a narrow definition consists of the points that personhood consists of “having a concept of self that persists through time, desires its continued existence, and is can set goals for future life and how to achieve those goals.” Obviously a fetus is not developed to have those abilities so it crosses that argument as too …show more content…
She gives the example that the mother is trapped in a tiny house with a large baby that is already pushing her against the walls and soon will crush her to death. This argument is not consistent with a case of abortion in that it placed the baby outside of the fetus and the baby being oversized. The mother would also have other places in the house to go to possibly avoid getting crushed by the enlarged baby. Even though it says the house is tiny, she is freely able to move and avoid being crushed. The baby that is in the fetus can only be predicted that it will endanger the mother's life. There is not an absolute to that, which makes the abortion a precaution rather than a last resort. If it is a case of consensual sex, the mother took the risk of taking actions that have a product that can lead to this. Instead of killing one person in the abortion, it can be looked at as trying to save two lives instead of one by not having the abortion, thus avoiding the right to life case by deciding which right trumps the other and having the potential to save more than just one life. Even in a case of rape, there is still an outcome where both the mother and child both live instead of one being decided to be the only one to
Marquis gives a definition of abortion as being “an action intended to bring about the death of a fetus for the sake of the woman who carries it.” Marquis says that both sides of the argument can agree that everyone has a right to life. His question then becomes what it is that makes a person be identified as a person. He gives the criteria for being a person is simply being identified as biologically human. He argues that statement saying that, that criteria is too broad and his example of that is human cancer cells being identified under that criteria. Human cancer cells are obviously not something given rights thus making the criteria too broad. An example of a narrow definition consists of the points that personhood consists of “having a concept of self that persists through time, desires its continued existence, and is can set goals for future life and how to achieve those goals.” Obviously a fetus is not developed to have those abilities so it crosses that argument as too …show more content…
She gives the example that the mother is trapped in a tiny house with a large baby that is already pushing her against the walls and soon will crush her to death. This argument is not consistent with a case of abortion in that it placed the baby outside of the fetus and the baby being oversized. The mother would also have other places in the house to go to possibly avoid getting crushed by the enlarged baby. Even though it says the house is tiny, she is freely able to move and avoid being crushed. The baby that is in the fetus can only be predicted that it will endanger the mother's life. There is not an absolute to that, which makes the abortion a precaution rather than a last resort. If it is a case of consensual sex, the mother took the risk of taking actions that have a product that can lead to this. Instead of killing one person in the abortion, it can be looked at as trying to save two lives instead of one by not having the abortion, thus avoiding the right to life case by deciding which right trumps the other and having the potential to save more than just one life. Even in a case of rape, there is still an outcome where both the mother and child both live instead of one being decided to be the only one to