Guide for Foster Parents

Abortion: A Controversial Topic

Abortion refers to terminating a pregnancy before term. People differ in their opinion on abortion. Some people support the idea of abortion while others oppose abortion maintaining that an embryo is a human with the right to life. They compare abortion to murder. Don Marquis and Thomson were against abortion. Their argument against abortion is centered on two matters. First, if the human fetus has the right to life and if the mother dominates the rights of the fetus (Marquis 192). Marquis primary argument is represented by his theory which is called Future Like Ours (FLO). In creating this argument, he tries to equate the life of an unborn child to the life of any other human being. Mainly, Marquis tries to make his arguments without the thought of what human rights say. He considers whether abortion is wrong by looking at what it does to the victim, what it does to other people and also what it does to the killer. For the killer, it is rough and leaves her in trauma, but this does not justify the action done.

The Loss of Future: A Major Consequence

Loss of one’s life is the greatest loss that a person can suffer. By aborting, you deprive a being of all the activities, experiences, enjoyments, and projects that would have made up one’s future. According to Marquis killing a human being because of your interests cannot also justify your actions and also considers it as the worst crime ever. Even the people who are dying of terminal illness want to have a future. Marquis ends up depending on a utilitarian account of right and wrong when he talks about people’s rights. His approach proves too much for instance besides abortion being wrong contraception is also wrong thus it deprives a potential person a chance of life (Marquis 194). Marquis’s view would most likely be similar to those of Kant. They both regard human life as important and having the right to experience life.

Equal Importance: Human Life and Animal Life

Marquis argument supports not getting rid of an able life in any form. He offers an analogy with animals and says that even an animal life is as important as a human life. ’Being a person is understood by the pro-choicer as having specific psychological aspects’ (Marquis, 445). Immanuel Kant is brought into reach by Marquis. He concludes that ’No true Kantian would treat a person as she would treat animals.’ Kantians have an obligation not to be unkind to animals. Therefore, Kant’s defense to the animals fails (Marquis 440). Marquis does not take into consideration the idea of Kant’s thinking: the categorical imperative. This imperative tells us that a deed can only be right if used as a universal law. Therefore, Marquis agrees with Kant about human and animal life. Notably, Marquis argues that even animals, just as human beings deserve to be given a right to live for any life is important. This statement shows us that they agree with Immanuel Kant who loves animals and would not inflict any harm on animals. Kant also believes that an animal should have a right to life too. The two also agree that abortion should be done to save the mother and child from emotional and physical pain. Kant thinks abortion is immoral just like Marquis (Gensler 89).

Abortion: A Moral Dilemma

In summary, both Marquis and Kant view abortion as illegal and murder, it not only causes harm to the child but also the mother. Additionally, it affects people emotionally and physically. A fetus life is important just like any other adult human life, and it deserves to be given a right to live too. Notably, an animal’s life is also as important as human life. In many places, abortion is illegal. However, in few areas, it is allowed only if the mother suffered a case of rape or has financial problems, which to many does not justify abortion.

Works Cited

Gensler, Harry J. “A Kantian argument against abortion.” Philosophical Studies 49.1 (1986): 83-98.

Marquis, Don. ”An argument that abortion is wrong.” Ethical theory: An anthology (2007): 439-450.

Marquis, Don. ”Why abortion is immoral.” The Journal of Philosophy 86.4 (1989): 183-202.