The first article, entitled “Why Abortion is Immoral,” is written by Don Marquis and examines the arguments aimed at establishing the fundamental injustice of abortion. Marquis links abortion to murder, a murdered victim is deprived of the value of her future. A fetus, if not aborted, can be assumed to have a future like ours that also has value, so aborting the fetus is immoral. Marquis rejects the idea that anti-abortion arguments are either irrational religious dogma or a conclusion generated from confusing philosophical arguments. Marquis says, “It’s wrong to kill us, but why is it wrong? He asserts that the brutality of the murder does not explain the immorality or the great loss others suffer in their absence. Furthermore, changing the biological state does not make the killing immoral, which makes the act immoral because the victim is deprived of a valuable future. The effect of the change in biological state deprives them of their life experiences, activities and pleasures. Marquis gives the example of terminally ill AIDS patients. They believe that death would result in the loss of a future, thus making an early death a bad thing. An aborted fetus risks premature death, so if premature death is a “bad thing,” abortion is unethical. The theory presented by Marquis also counters the idea that it is wrong to kill only if the being is biologically human by giving the example of a different species that could have a valuable future like ours. If the loss of a future makes killing a species wrong, killing that particular species is also wrong. The fetus, even if it is simply considered a "potential human", still has a precious future filled with pleasures, activities... middle of paper ... it has the right to do whatever it wants with his body. Although I believe abortion is unethical, we cannot place restrictions on what a person can do with their body. I agree with losing the "precious future" argument, but in some cases abortion is necessary to save a mother's life. The idea that a fetus is a “potential” person is absurd; the fetus is actually a person simply by virtue of its biological traits. Simply put, an abortion and homicide are basically the same thing, but one is legal and the other is not. It is true that the fetus does not have the neurological capacity to envisage a future, but aborting it remains an immoral crime. If a fetus had the ability to speak, it would most likely want to live, but in either case it is difficult to distinguish whether it is the mother's rights that are being taken away or those of the fetus...