Judith Thomson And Don Marquis On Abortion Philosophy Essay

Judith Thomson And Don Marquis On Abortion school of thought Es theoriseIn politics, religion and even ethics, stillbirth is a highly controversial topic. Judith Thomson and Don Marquis argon no different, as both(prenominal) of these philosophers possess their feature opinions on abortion. Thomson presents a able figureation in favor of abortion in some sheaths ground on what we as hu mankind races argon obligated to do to answer separates. Her argument survives the challenges that Marquiss opinion against abortion presents. The morality of abortion is discussed by both of these famous philosophers.Judith Thomson provides a defense for abortion, in specific circumstances, through a series of bizarre thought experiments (Thomson, 1971). Thomson begins her argument by refuting the common arguments against abortion, which sets up her first peculiar thought experiment (Thomson, 1971). In the experiment, she asks the subject to judge that they wake up in the morning and f ind yourself post to back in bed with an unconscious violinist (Thomson, 1971, p. 48). This violinist has a foreboding(a) kidney disease and you are the provided person that can save him (Thomson, 1971). You essential stay in bed with this violinist for a specific meter of measure and afterward that amount of time you will be dispense with to leave (Thomson, 1971). Thomson implants the musical theme that the violinists recompense to demeanor is more salient than your right to decide what happens to your own body. The basis for Thomsons argument becomes based on our craft to each other as tender-hearteds. Thomson states that nowhere in this country, is any man compelled by rectitude to be even a Minimally respectable Samaritan to any person whereas, in almost states in this country women are compelled by law to be non merely Minimally right Samaritans but Good Samaritans to un born(p) persons inside them (Thomson, 1971, p. 63). A Good Samaritan is person that is of ten heroic and goes out(a) of their way to help peck in heroic ways whereas beness a minimally powerful Samaritan reasonable requires passel to do the right thing without being heroic. This melodic theme is the most persuasive she presents because it shows a clear inconsistency in the expectations of society. Thomson uses the brutal object lesson of the death of Kitty Genovese to further establish her point (Thomson, 1971). In this case a woman named Kitty Genovese was attacked and stabbed to death. Although 38 flock heard the encounter only one of them called the police while another(prenominal)(prenominal) yelled out the window to tell them to stop. A minimally decent Samaritan would be in possession of at least called the cops, showing that 37 of the people werent being minimally decent Samaritans in this case. However since in that respect is no law against failing to be a minimally decent Samaritan, none of the 37 people were at fault. It is absurd that those people werent held up to the standard of being minimally decent but people against abortion hold that women essential be unplayful Samaritans to an unborn child inside of them. Another thought of Thomsons argument is focused on a char formeristic of abortion that she only touches upon. Throughout her argument for the permissibility of abortion she assumes that a fetus is a human at the jiffy of initiation even though she doesnt agree with this idea as shown from this quotation from the beginning of essay, A pertly fertilized ovum, a newly implanted clump of cells, is no more a person than an acorn is an oak tree (Thomson, 1971, p. 48). There is obviously no place parallel among an oak tree and humans, but this raises an interesting question regarding when we must say that a fetus becomes a human. Through this idea and by discussing the persona standard surround our responsibility to help each other, Thomson provides a cause argument.Philosopher Don Marquis wrote his piece Why A bortion Is Immoral after Judith Thomsons essay and developed an argument challenging Thomson. Marquis addresses a important aspect of the abortion argument by talking about when life starts during pregnancy (Marquis, 1989). For the sake of his argument, he concludes that life is present at the moment of conception (Marquis, 1989). The main focus of Marquis argument is the idea that since a fetus is considered a person, the fetus has a succeeding(a)-like-ours, where the fetus will have plenty of experiences and happiness just like any other human being (Marquis, 1989). Since it is prima facie seriously morally wrong to a eradicate a human being, because because adults and fetuses both share this future it is in addition prima facie seriously morally wrong to kill fetuses (Marquis, 1989). This poses a kinda large problem for Thomsons argument. Her argument about our duty towards each other becomes irrelevant because if something is the only prima facie seriously morally wrong ac t consequently, in the view of a pluralist, it is your duty not to do that action. Thomson points out that, at the time her essay was written, the law required women to be good Samaritans to fetuses (Thomson, 1971). However, the only morally relevant fact in this case becomes that you have a prima facie duty not to kill humans, including fetuses. Thomson states that there are no laws requiring people to be minimally decent Samaritans, but that there should be because many people hold women to this standard in the case of abortion (Thomson, 1971). However, if we begin holding people to minimally decent standards, then according to Marquis argument it seems that women must carry their children to term. Plenty of people carry their baby the full term so since Thomson is asking for laws requiring people to be minimally decent people, then by her own logic abortion would be illegal.While Don Marquis presents a arduous argument challenging Judith Thomsons argument, Thomsons argument pr oves to be stronger than Marquis. When we consider the idea that the zygote might not be a fetus at the time of conception, Marquis argument begins to fall apart. This collapse begins when Thomson uses the oak tree analogy. She states, akin(predicate) things might be said about the development of an acorn into an oak tree, and it does not follow that acorns are oak trees, or that we had better say they are (Thomson, 1971, p. 47). This obviously cant be used as a direct parallel to a fetus, but it serves to prove her point. Thomson conveys a relevant idea to the argument of abortion that Marquis fails to discuss. Another way that Marquis argument fails is because he contradicts himself on the subject of contraception (Marquis, 1989). At the time of conception the life is just a cluster of various cells. One criterion removed from conception, is the failure of a sperm fertilizing an junkie for various reasons including contraception. It then seems that the use of contraception wou ld be prima facie wrong because it denies the sperm and the egg the possibility of fertilization, which would lead to a life of pleasurable experiences. Marquis is adamant that he doesnt think contraception is wrong (Marquis, 1989) but this becomes seems to contradict his own reasoning. Another problem in Marquis future-like-ours argument is that Marquis is relying on the fetuses having fortunate lives (Marquis, 1989). However the question should be raised about children born into tremendously difficult lives. While many fetuses will have ticket childhoods, there are many horrible cases of children living in passing impoverished conditions. Because this is an idea that Marquis should have considered his argument suffers yet another blow.Abortion is a topic with a multitude of views and opinions to discuss and both Thomson and Marquis many plenty of the possibilities. It is clear that, while Marquis has a rather intriguing argument, Thomson provides a much stronger argument for he r view on abortion. Not only does she provide more valid or sensitive evidence, her argument is also more applicable to real world situations. seldom in everyday life are we forced to consider the future of a zygote but almost everyday we must consider how much we owe to one another. Both Judith Thomson and Don Marquis are enormously respected philosophers but in this situation Thomson manages to survive the opposition. all in all it took was a further examination of Marquis opinion, to discover the more blind drunk argument.Reference PageMarquis, D. (1989). Why abortion is immoral. In The Journal of Philosophy (4 ed., Vol. 86, pp. 183-202). Journal of Philosophy Inc.Thomson, J. (1971). A defense of abortion. In Philosophy worldly concern affairs (1 ed., Vol. 1, pp. 47-66). Princeton University Press.Thomson, J. (1971). A defense of abortion. In J. Thomson (Ed.), Philosophy Public Affairs (1 ed., Vol. 1, p. 48). Princeton University Press.Thomson, J. (1971). A defense of abort ion. In J. Thomson (Ed.), Philosophy Public Affairs (1 ed., Vol. 1, p. 63). Princeton University Press.