The broad policy tends to take too much. As it is prima facie wrong ending life of human beings, it seems wrong to end the life of a living human cancer cell culture too. The basis of such argument relies on the point that culture is both human and living. Therefore, Marquis indicates that the anti-abortionist’s argument seems to be too broad.The pro-choicer aims at finding a moral principle relating to the wrongness of killing that tends to narrow down to remove fetuses under it. They end up not embracing enough weight in their argument. Therefore, other standoff presents itself, as the notion, “It is prima facie wrong to kill only rational agents”. It does not explain the wrongness in killing a young child or an infant or the mentally ill. The two arguments are at both extremes. The argument of the anti-abortionists seems to be too broad, as the pro-choice principles are too narrow for acceptance. By both sides, coming to a consensus also tend to grave the difficulties further. The anti-abortionists will tend to rectify their argument by including the word “human being” (Marquis, 1989). Therefore, arguing that it is wrong to end the life of a human being. They support their notion by identifying that the fetuses fall under human being category.An argument arises that something only develops into a human being only after the process of development. Therefore, since the first-trimester fetuses and maybe all the fetuses have not yet developed into full characteristics to be human beings. Similarly, the pro-choice attempts to find the immorality of killing infants but makes abortion immoral They extends the explanation of a person to include infants and young children.Marquis brings us out of this dialectical quandary. He notes that the moral generalization of both sides does not appeal. He suggests that both arguments tend to be accidental generalizations, making moral claims out of the essence of the matter. His argument relies on an account concerning killing. He presents his case by identifying that killing any person, child, or adult is wrong.The brutalization of the act of killing does not explain its immorality. What make killing wrong is not on the effect of the murder or the victim’s relatives and friends. It lies entirely on the victim. The of loss of a person’s life is the most significant loss to the person. It deprives one of the enjoyments, the projects, activities and the
Beckwith, F. J. (2007). Defending life: A moral and legal case against abortion choice. London [u.a.: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Kitchen, R. (2013). From Shame towards an Ethics of Ambiguity. Sartre Studies International, 19(1), 55-70. doi:10.3167/ssi.2013.190104
Marquis, D. (1989). Why abortion is immoral. The Journal of Philosophy, 183-202.
Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (1999). You can’t lose what you ain’t never had: A reply to Marquis on abortion. Philosophical Studies, 96(1):59-72
Strong, C. (2012). Reply to Marquis: how things stand with the ‘future like ours’ argument. Journal of medical ethics, 38(9), 567-569.
Traister, R. (2014). Women Before Fetuses. New Republic, 245(19), 26-27.
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples