Throughout Don Marquis’s article on why abortion is immoral, it is clear that he stands at a third party view on this controversial idea. Marquis is neither anti-abortion nor pro-choice, and he states different reasons why he thinks this throughout his article. Some of the reasons are that anti-abortionists’ views are too broad and pro-choicers’ views are too narrow, not enough research or factual information of the topic of abortion, and then towards the end he talks about how it may or may not be different with animals.
First, Marquis talks about anti-abortion and the problems he sees from the pro-choice side, and then he talks about pro-choice and counteracts that with the problems an anti-abortionist would see. He believes abortion is immoral;
…show more content…
This happens when Marquis throws in the part about how it is wrong to take a human life; which may or may not be true, but if that is the case then killing a human cancer-cell culture is wrong. He uses that as an example, because he knows everyone will say that no killing a human cancer-cell culture is not wrong; he uses this to make a very clear point, that anti-abortion is too broad. Since he thinks this, does this make him a pro-choice? No, because he then goes on and says how a pro-choice’s argument is too narrow. A pro-choice person may say how it is only seriously wrong to kill only persons. This is the problem he finds, ‘only persons’, it says nothing about infants, young children, the severely retarded, or the severely mentally ill.
As anti-abortionist will change their view by saying it is wrong to end the life of a human being; the pro-choicer will change their view by extending the definition of a person to infants and young children. Marquis finds more and more problems with both of these views the more he keeps breaking it down. By these points mentioned above, it is clear why he is a third party view, because nothing about each view is factual and there is nothing about each view where there is actual