The morality of abortion is one of the most debated topics, and this is because of the Morality that touches on the legal, medicinal, religious, and moral aspects of society. The arguments against abortion are usually centered on the belief that a fetus is a human being and therefore has the right to Live. While the arguments against it are usually centered on the disabilities of the fetus in that it is unable to have feelings. Aside from that, arguments against abortion also argue that the woman has a right to her own body and should therefore be able to choose whether they keep the pregnancy or not. An example of a great philosopher against abortion is Marquis, who considers abortion wrong by centering his arguments on the wrongness of killing a fetus because it has the right to life and a future just like any other human being. However, Thomson Rejects the notion that a fetus has the right to life because if the fetus has the right to live in someone else’s body, then it means that it has more rights than the one carrying the pregnancy such that they would have no option but to keep the fetus till it is due even in life-threatening cases. This essay argues that Thomson’s view on abortion challenges the arguments made by Marquis and thus makes Marquis’s arguments unsuccessful.

Before Thomson questioned Marquis’ views on abortion, marquis’ arguments were considered one of the successful secular views against abortion. Marquis places his argument on the value of human life by arguing that all people have the right to life, making killing wrong. According to Marquis (1989), killing the fetus is wrong because the fetus is a potential human being. Therefore, he looks at the impact that murdering a fetus will have on its intended future as a human being. Marquis (1989) asserts that the loss of life is one of the most significant losses one can suffer. This argument strengthens Marquis’s arguments as he proves that the loss of the life of a fetus deprives a set of activities, projects, and experiences that it would have in its future. Therefore, Marquis argues that killing a fetus is wrong primarily because the killing inflicts a significant loss on the victim.

Marquis “(1989) further argues that the loss of life of the fetus should not be taken as less important because of the biological state of the fetus, but the effect of killing a fetus in its biological state is similar to killing a person because it also leads to the loss of experiences, activities, and enjoyment that would have been parts of the future life of the fetus. Marquis elaborate that the activities, project, and enjoyments mentioned are valuable for their sakes and are also meant to be valued by the fetus in the future. As the fetus ages, it can change and appreciate life’s experiences, activities, and enjoyments just like any other human being. Therefore Marquis’s arguments reveal that when a fetus is aborted, it deprives a future personal life that the fetus would have valued. Therefore Marquis concludes that when a fetus is killed, it is deprived of all its future value.

The underappreciated virtue in Marquis’ argument is that he fails to explain the person primarily wronged by a killing. Marqués vies well explains that the wrong of killing is not appreciated in terms of the brutalization of the killer or the loss of a friend of the victim or the family. However, the wrongs of a killing are explained by the wrongness done to the victim. This explains why the loss of the future is a powerful thing considered when a fetus loses its life. Marquis explains that killing imposes the misfortune of premature death on the fetus, and it is the misfortune where the wrongness stems from

The shortcoming of Marquis’ argument is that his arguments tend to downplay the pregnant woman’s value and point of view. The views of the wrongness of killing also mismatch the role of contraception and abstinence from sex. Aside from that, this argument also devalues the explanatory resources of the competing personhood theory while overstating its explanatory power. The objections showcase that something is amiss in Marquis’s arguments on abortion, especially regarding the vies that actual persons have future value. The expression future value is ambiguous in that it is unclear whether future value entails the ability of human beings to understand and enjoy the experience or whether it means that the fetuses will have a self-representative future of value because they can construct mental representations of their futures.

Judith Thomson challenges Marquis thought that a fetus has the right to life just like any other human being. Thomson believes Marquis’s arguments are insufficient and nowhere close to solving the abortion debate. Thomson (1971) asserts that even if it is assumed that a fetus is a human bei