Question

1). In approximately 350 words, please:

Summarize and briefly explain Thomson’s “ailing violinist” case. What are the details of the case? What are Thomson’s moral intuitions about the case? And how (specifically) is Thomson’s violinist case supposed to motivate an argument in favor of the moral permissibility of abortion in certain cases? In other words, how is Thomson’s argument is supposed to work and what is it supposed to ultimately show? Do you think Thomson’s argument is a good one? Explain why or why not.

2).  In approximately 350 words, please:

Summarize and briefly explain Marquis' argument for the impermissibility of abortion. What specific considerations does Marquis use to support his argument? According to Marquis, what is it (most fundamentally) that makes killing wrong? And how (specifically) is Marquis’ view about the wrongness of killing supposed to motivate an argument in favor of the moral impermissibility of abortion? Do you think Marquis’ argument is a good one? Explain why or why not.

Answer 1

Thomson's argument:

In Thomson's ailing violinist case she asks the readers to imagine waking up against an unconscious violinist who has fatal kidney ailment and whose circulatory system is plugged into theirs by kidnappers for dialysis(because your blood type matches theirs). Thomson's moral intuitions about this case are similar to his intuitions concerning abortion. Thomson argues that the kidnapped person isn't bound to provide the life support to the violinist. Similarly mother is not bound to keep the child alive. Thomson argues that it is not the moral obligation of neither (the mother or the kidnapped person) to accede the situation.

Thomson maintains that unplugging would not mean that the kidnapped person killed the violinist because the kidnapped person has every right to free him/herself. Similarly abortion is not a homicide because foetus is not a person and a mother has every right to abort a child because she's the one being affected by it.

Thomson's argument is irrelevant as these cases differ in multiple ways. Firstly, the kidnapped person has just to unplug his/her self from the stranger he/she's attached to. Whereas in case of an abortion, a mother has to get her child killed and removed from the womb. There is no attachment or relationship between the two people in the first case. Whereas in the second case the child belongs to the mother.

Marquis argument:

Marquis argues that abortion is morally impermissible. He bases his argument on following grounds:

1) Abortion is wrong because it is homicide as foetus is a human being with rights.

2) Abortion is wrong because it deprives a child to see future or to experience life.

According to Marquis what makes (most fundamentally) killing wrong is the fact that it deprives a child from experiencing life. Based on this argument Marquis maintains that mothers should allow children to come into this world and to see their future (because life is valuable). Aborting a baby would lead to loss of a life, a future and a person, therefore abortion should be morally impermissible.

Marquis argument is also irrelevant. We can only deprive someone of something when he/she exists. Also, it is not necessary that the future of the child is worth seeing and its life worth experiencing. In most of the cases, a women aborts he child because the situation surrounding his/her birth is unpleasant and painful.

.