Because of the moral standards of society, abortions are becoming a more controversial issue. In this paper, I intend to argue against Don Marquis’s argument that a fetus’ having a potential “future just like ours” is a sufficient statement for claiming that “abortion is, except possibly in rare cases, seriously immoral, that it is in the same category as killing an innocent human being” (p.183). I will first explain Marquis’ “future just like ours” theory which is used to prove his argument that abortion is wrong. While Marquis claims that a future is a natural property that is attached to fetuses and any human beings, I want to argue that there is a difference between future and the natural property. Second, I want to argue against his statement
…show more content…
Let’s assume that a fetus has been diagnosed with a lifetime illness and it will have to suffer the permanent pain with treatment until death. You might say it is necessary to keep the fetus and give it life-prolonging treatment, but it might not suffice for calling a valuable future. When Marquis talks about a future like ours, all he mentions is enjoyment, a valuable experience. However, we all know that in the reality, there is another side of experiences that should be considered. That could involve tragedy, pain, suffering or misfortune in life. Besides Marquis’s positive, valuable future, can terrible life experience also be called a “valuable” …show more content…
I have to admit that Marquis’s argument is strong and clever. He avoids the traditional “personhood/sanctity of life” debates and the unusual circumstances that can easily form a forum. In order to establish there is not sufficient condition of the wrongness of killing some being, I mainly focus on arguing against Marquis’ crucial moral category “having a valuable future like ours” in his argument. In addition, I clam that the fetus does not justify as a human being nor have a desire to go on living. Therefore, it will not consider as killing nor moral impermissibility of
Let’s assume that a fetus has been diagnosed with a lifetime illness and it will have to suffer the permanent pain with treatment until death. You might say it is necessary to keep the fetus and give it life-prolonging treatment, but it might not suffice for calling a valuable future. When Marquis talks about a future like ours, all he mentions is enjoyment, a valuable experience. However, we all know that in the reality, there is another side of experiences that should be considered. That could involve tragedy, pain, suffering or misfortune in life. Besides Marquis’s positive, valuable future, can terrible life experience also be called a “valuable” …show more content…
I have to admit that Marquis’s argument is strong and clever. He avoids the traditional “personhood/sanctity of life” debates and the unusual circumstances that can easily form a forum. In order to establish there is not sufficient condition of the wrongness of killing some being, I mainly focus on arguing against Marquis’ crucial moral category “having a valuable future like ours” in his argument. In addition, I clam that the fetus does not justify as a human being nor have a desire to go on living. Therefore, it will not consider as killing nor moral impermissibility of