Violinist Theory

Throughout the class we have opened our minds to three different views on abortions. After reading and understanding each philosopher’s argument I agree with Thomson. Unlike Marquis who argues that most abortions are wrong because it deprives a fetus of its future, and Warren who states that abortions are permissible because a fetus is not a person; Thomson believes that abortions are permissible under normal circumstances because a woman has a right to stop something from using her body against her own will. We will look at Thomson’s argument compared to Marquis to prove that Thomson is correct that abortions are morally permissible under normal circumstances. After we will compare Thomson with Warren to prove that even though Thomson supports that abortions are permissible under normal circumstances that abortions are not permissible under all circumstances. When we compare Thomson and Marquis we will look at Thomson’s Violinist case. Marquis supports that abortions are not morally permissible under normal circumstances. Marquis believes that abortions are only morally permissible in hard cases, such as when the mother’s life depends on it. Marquis takes us down a different road, not whether or not the fetus has a right but the morality of killing and asking the question when is it morally permissible to deprive someone of their future. Marquis develops this FLO account which stands for future like ours. He will argue that the fetus is an entity and has a future of value like ours therefore it is wrong to kill that entity. Since having an abortion is killing an entity that has a future value than it is wrong to kill that entity. Marquis’ FLO argument is stated as; if Flo then it is wrong to kill an entity with a future of value and abortion is the killing of an entity with a future value. Therefore FLO and abortion is wrong.
(1) It is morally wrong except in extreme circumstances to cause anything the loss of a valuable future.
(2) Abortion causes a