Can Marquis’ account of the wrongness of abortion consistently allow for exceptions to a moral sanction against the act of terminating pregnancy? Why or why not?
Marquis derives his argument against abortion on the perception of general wrongness of being involved in killing. Killing human beings is wrong because it deprives majority of them from their own future. It can be argued that the account of wrongness of abortion according to Marquis cannot allow for exceptions to carry out moral sanction which is opposed towards the various acts of termination of pregnancy. This is because his argument concerning the wrongness of killing applies to the people who have a future. His argument shows that the people who have a future with …show more content…
However, according to Marquis, killing an embryo is different from killing adult humans because the adults usually have a life which they usually value and they prefer not to lose it at any specific period in time. However, a fetus can develop to have such a life and therefore killing them can have an impact too.
According to Steinbock, an early term fetus is not sentient. Explain why Steinbock makes this claim, and then how she uses this claim to argue that most abortions are not seriously morally wrong. Make sure to discuss how the interests view relates to this argument.
Steinbock argues that a fetus is not sentient and her definition of sentient is the ability to feel pain as well as pleasure. According to her, the fetus does not have any moral status because it is unborn and it does not have any feelings (Steinbock, 1999). Therefore, it is morally justified that abortion can take place. According to her most of the non-sentient beings cannot be hurt because it does no matter to them concerning what will happen. When carrying out abortions, the unborn children are not accorded any interests because they do not have any interests. This shows that carrying out abortions can be justified because the fetus has no feelings, it has no interests and therefore abortions can be carried on …show more content…
Does his argument work? Why or why not?
Most of the prohibitionist usually argue that drug abuse has to be banned because it is harmful to the health of the various individuals and the prohibition of drugs usually decreases the rate of drug abuse in the general society. According to them, the government should be given the mandate of preventing people from harming themselves through prohibition of drugs in the society. Huemer argues that the prohibition of drug should not be done because the government does not be involved in preventing people from harming themselves (Huemer, 2004).
According to him, most of the drugs which are prohibited has a lower rate of contribution to the rate of death than the legalized ones. For instance, tobacco causes deaths of more than 15 users out of 1000 users as compared to the prohibition of other drugs which causes deaths of up to 2.6 users out of 1000. This shows that the rate of deaths for the people who are using drugs which are prohibited is lower and there is no point of limiting the use of such