In reading these two separate arguments on abortion, I find it very hard to agree with Marquis’s view on abortion. The first problem I had was how little regard Marquis paid to the person doing the killing (in this scenario, the mother). He chooses only to focus on the fetus. The main premise of his argument is the value of the fetus’s future. While this is an aspect to seriously consider, shouldn’t there be some consideration of the value of the mother’s future? In choosing to have a child, a woman’s health and physical capabilities are seriously compromised for nine months. It does not end there, after having this child, she must now take care of him or her until he or she is able to live a sustainable life. By saying that abortion is immoral, it is eliminates a woman’s right to do as she pleases with her body.               

                But in entertaining the idea of this being a matter of the effects to the victim, I still disagree with his argument. How are we to know that the fetus will live a life of value? If a woman chooses to have an abortion because they cannot afford to have another child, according to Marquis, this would be considered immoral. So say this woman is has the child and it grows up in poverty. Statistically, those that grow up in poverty are more likely to have trouble with the law. As a societal norm, a person who lives a life of crime isn't generally considered having lived a life of value. If we then take into account the life the mother is now saddled with, she is also not living a life of value. I don’t think Marquis made a strong enough argument in his attempt to defend the immorality of abortion.