Katherine RussellProfessor EllisPhil-111-50111 December 2017Thomson Vs Marquis Abortion is a popular topic that some people avoid talking about. What could happen to someone that they would want to terminate a pregnancy? Should people be allowed to terminate a pregnancy and under what circumstances should it be allowed? Should we permit all circumstances, if the mother does not want the child in her body? Marquis and Thomson discuss this controversial issue in their articles. Marquis, in “Why Abortion is Immoral” argues that killing someone, no matter how big or how small, is depriving them of their potential life experiences. Thomson, in “A Defense of Abortion” argues that a mother has the right to decide what happens in her body. I agree with Marquis’s argument because I believe that when a sperm and an egg combine, they are becoming a human who has a life ahead of them and if you decide to engage in sexual activity, despite using a contraceptive, you are agreeing that if you become pregnant you are willing and able to have and take care of a child. Marquis position he is arguing is that abortion is immoral. He claims that abortion is wrongful killing, as wrong as killing an innocent adult human being. Wrongful killing is bad because of the effect death has on the victim. Killing is theft. What makes life valuable is our experiences and the things that we do. Being killed robs you of any chance to have that. That explains why we think it is so tragic when a child is killed. They could have done so many great things in their future. They could have graduated college and gotten married, made friends and had kids. Death ruins all chances of any potential future experiences. While we may think this argument does not apply to fetuses because they do not have the capability of enjoying or valuing anything, fetuses have the same potential to enjoy valuable experiences. Fetuses are persons and have a right to life. Why is it that killing a baby the moment it comes out of the womb it is considered murder, but killing a baby in the womb is just getting “an abortion”? It is just as morally impermissible to terminate a pregnancy as it is to kill a newborn infant. Judith Jarvis Thomson writes a paper over the defense against abortion. Deciphering between the rights of a fetus and the rights of the mother. A popular defense for abortion is- every person has a right to life, the fetus is a person, therefore the fetus has a right to life. In order to help prove her points, and disprove this statement, she gives three thought experiments. The first is called the Violinist example. You wake up one morning in the hospital with a famous professional violinist attached to your kidneys, he needs the use of your kidneys for nine months. She refers back to- every person has a right to life, the violinist is a person, therefore the violinist has a right to life. So, despite not knowing the violinist or volunteering to be plugged in, it is impermissible to unplug from the violinist. The violinist example is meant to represent becoming pregnant from being raped. Another thought experiment- People seeds. Image there are people seeds that drift about the air like pollen. And if you open your window one may sneak in and take root in your carpet. You do not wish to have children right now so you fix up your windows with fine mesh screens, ensuring nothing can happen. However, the very very rare occasion does happen, one of the screens is defective and a seed drifts in and takes root. Does the person-plant now deserve a right to use your house? This is an example of become pregnant even though you are using a contraceptive. Marquis’s argument is more direct and valid to the subject. Most of Thomson’s argument is thought experiments that are not always necessarily accurate. Marquis’s argument is killing is theft of future experiences and a fetus has future experiences. Thomson’s argument is “what about the mother and her body” and while this makes sense, the mother (usually) chose to engage in sexual activities. On birth control or not, giving consent to sex, if the person knows the possible outcomes of sex, gives up the right to their own bodily integrity. If a person does not give consent to sexual activity, that becomes hard- however I do not believe the violinist example is the best way to explain this. The difference is, a random violinist has ZERO connection to the person it is hooked to, and while a child by rape was not the decision of the woman, pregnancy is something that is beautiful and a miracle to some. The thing is, you and a baby in your womb have a connection. It is extremely hard for some people to become pregnant and for someone to terminate a pregnancy because they do not wish to be pregnant, while it is understandable, pregnancy is an amazing and beautiful thing. And it is extremely selfish to terminate the life of human who has the potential to enjoy experiences because a woman cannot and does not want to tough it out for nine months. Although you did not wish for the baby, it is still half yours and in your body. You have a connection with a baby in your womb. It is GROWING from 2 cells, one of them being yours, into a person with a heart and body. I believe a fetus’s right to life is more important than a mothers bodily integrity. A mother will be pregnant for 9 months, a child has an entire life ahead of them. If a mother agrees to engage in sexual activities, knowing the potential consequences, it is unfair and unjust for her to not keep the child and suffer the consequences of her actions. The consequences may just end up being a beautiful rewarding child with a life to live.