In an article titled “Why Abortion is Immoral”, Don Marquis concludes that any action that deprives an individual of a valuable future is a serious prima facie morally wrong. Marquis argues that a fetus has a “future like ours”(FLO) of great value and killing the fetus deprives the fetus of that future. Therefore, killing a fetus is morally wrong and since abortion is killing a fetus, abortion is morally wrong. I have chosen to analyze natural law and ethical egoism as it relates to abortion. Ethical egoism agrees with abortion while, natural law does not. I will argue that abortion is not immoral by analyzing two ethical theories natural law and ethical egoism, analyzing Don Marquis’ conclusion of abortion, and discussing my personal position
…show more content…
Also referred to as the law of self-preservation, natural law is based on reason and natural inclination. Natural inclination allows a person to see something as good and desirable, while reason helps us to understand that natural inclination must be pursued only for fundamental desires and not desires that develop under momentary feelings. To better guide the decisions of humans, Natural Law provides five precepts: natural inclination for the good, natural inclination for the preservation of life, natural inclination for the preservation of the species, natural inclination to the known truth, and natural inclination to live in society. Based on the definition of natural law this theory would agree with Don Marquis conclusion of abortion. Overall Marquis concludes that abortion is morally wrong because it forcefully removes the right of a “future like ours” to the fetus. The preservation of life, reproduction and the nurture of the young are precepts from natural law that agree with Marquis’ conclusion about abortion. There are also theories that disagree with Marquis’ position on …show more content…
Marquis defends the immorality of abortion by stating that abortion robs the fetus of a future like ours without defining what a future like ours entails. Each individual is different and has is destined to a future that is unique from anyone else’s. There is no correct way to generalize every individual’s future. In addition, every individual is not destined to have a bright future ahead of them filled with positive activities and experiences. For example children in born in third world countries are faced with higher treats of disease, poverty, and lack of education which negatively affects their future. Marquis’ argument would approve the killing of mentally disable, handicap, and senile individuals. These individuals do not posses futures of value. I also disagree with Marquis’s argument on behalf of rape case victims. According to Marquis, it is impermissible for rape victims to receive abortions due to the fact that abortion is riding a fetus if it’s FLO. His argument also prohibits the use of the morning after pill that which is designed to purge an egg the day after fertilization. Although Marquis’ argument does not prohibit the use of contraception, once the sperm fertilizes the egg it is considered a fetus with the right to
Also referred to as the law of self-preservation, natural law is based on reason and natural inclination. Natural inclination allows a person to see something as good and desirable, while reason helps us to understand that natural inclination must be pursued only for fundamental desires and not desires that develop under momentary feelings. To better guide the decisions of humans, Natural Law provides five precepts: natural inclination for the good, natural inclination for the preservation of life, natural inclination for the preservation of the species, natural inclination to the known truth, and natural inclination to live in society. Based on the definition of natural law this theory would agree with Don Marquis conclusion of abortion. Overall Marquis concludes that abortion is morally wrong because it forcefully removes the right of a “future like ours” to the fetus. The preservation of life, reproduction and the nurture of the young are precepts from natural law that agree with Marquis’ conclusion about abortion. There are also theories that disagree with Marquis’ position on …show more content…
Marquis defends the immorality of abortion by stating that abortion robs the fetus of a future like ours without defining what a future like ours entails. Each individual is different and has is destined to a future that is unique from anyone else’s. There is no correct way to generalize every individual’s future. In addition, every individual is not destined to have a bright future ahead of them filled with positive activities and experiences. For example children in born in third world countries are faced with higher treats of disease, poverty, and lack of education which negatively affects their future. Marquis’ argument would approve the killing of mentally disable, handicap, and senile individuals. These individuals do not posses futures of value. I also disagree with Marquis’s argument on behalf of rape case victims. According to Marquis, it is impermissible for rape victims to receive abortions due to the fact that abortion is riding a fetus if it’s FLO. His argument also prohibits the use of the morning after pill that which is designed to purge an egg the day after fertilization. Although Marquis’ argument does not prohibit the use of contraception, once the sperm fertilizes the egg it is considered a fetus with the right to