philosophy quiz
Kevingao
12AbortionMarquis.docx1. When Marquis discusses “exceptions” at the beginning of the article, what is he saying?
‘Exceptions’ in Don Marquis’ article in which he labored greatly to demonstrate the parallel between abortion and killing of an adult human, refers to the circumstances in which abortion is morally acceptable. Marquis seems to have in mind the situations such as when the pregnancy puts the life of the mother in danger, for instance when the mother is not of sound mental status, or when the pregnancy has resulted from incest, rape or defilement (Settles & Furgerson, 2015). Abortion is also acceptable in such situations as when the fetus has serious genetic defects that are likely to impair its postnatal life.
2. What does Marquis assert is a flaw on the pro-life side of the abortion debate? Do you agree that this is a flaw?
The flaw in pro-life side of the abortion debate, according to Marquis (2017), is that the pro-life debaters rely on a principle too broad. For instance, Marquis asserts that the argument by pro-choicers that the fetus lacks some of the necessary features for their inclusion into the moral society is more convincing than the premise by pro-life debaters that the fetus has certain features of the adult human. In my opinion, Marquis’ assertion is indeed a flaw because the fetus brain is in the tabula rasa state hence does not know anything. Moreover, an adult person is capable of carrying out life’s necessities by themselves but the fetus is solely dependent on the mother, becoming more of a parasite to the mother. The mother too deserves to decide what to do with her life and is not obliged to support another person’s life for nine months without her own consent.
3. What does Marquis assert is a flaw on the pro-choice side of the abortion debate? Do you agree that this is a flaw?
On the pro-choice side of the abortion debate, the flaw that Marquis points out is that the pro-choicers’ principles are too narrow. My opinion is that this is not really a flaw since the pro-choicers have convincing points. Consider, for instance, when the pregnancy is a result of rape or other morally repugnant acts like incest. It is definite that in such cases, it is not the mother’s will to have the baby. Therefore, it is convincing to allow the mother to abort. The other position is when the mother’s health is endangered by the pregnancy itself. Alexander (2014), asserts that the mother herself is an adult human and deserves to live just like the fetus deserves to live. So, would she put her life at stake for another person to live? No way. Only the Biblical Jesus Christ could do that.
4. In your own words, what does Marquis mean by the concept of an FLO? Does it sound like it has at least some initial plausibility in identifying what is wrong with killing a person? (You may find that you change your mind on this. That’s fine. I am only asking what you think when you first get a grasp on the concept.)
Future like ours (FLO) concept is used by Marquis to imply that each human being has a bright and valuable future, hence has right to live and realize the bliss of their future (Vogelstein, 2016). In my opinion, fetuses are potential adults and thus if adults have a future, then fetuses have a future as well. The FLO theory, indeed, has the initial plausibility in identifying the wrong in killing a potential being because killing the fetus denies it the chance to live and realize their future just like the adult human beings.
5. Why does Marquis say the value of the future is not based on whether one currently values the goods it may be expected to bring? Do you agree?
The value of the future is not based on whether a person currently values the goods it may be expected to bring because, according to Marquis, nobody can definitely tell what their future is like hence there is no way one can value the goods expected therefrom. I do agree with this argument because the future cannot be foreseen.
6. Chose one of the “appeal to cases” Marquis reviews in the section titled “Arguments in Favor of the FLO Theory” and explain how it illustrates his overall purpose in this section of the article. Do you find it compelling?
One argument in favor of FLO argument is that it explains why killing is one of the worst crimes. It is equivalent to robbing a person of their future and, in this regard, Marquis argues that killing someone is only justified in the extreme cases. I find this argument quite compelling because robbing someone of their future is undeniably worse than robbing them of their material possessions.
7. Explain his reply to the “potentiality” objection. Do you think it effectively refutes Warren’s comments on this point?
Marquis’ response to potentiality objection is that just like actual adults, potential adults too have a right to life thus abortion is immoral irrespective of the stage at which it is carried out. This response adequately refutes Warren’s comment that the actual beings and potential beings have different rights.
8. What is the argument from interests? Why does Marquis deny that it affects his theory?
The argument from interests is that a person must invest an interest in the future in order to have a valuable future. Since fetuses do not have any awareness, they cannot have an interest in the future hence they cannot have a valuable future. However, Marquis denies it because even an actual adult who is temporarily unconscious can have their life supported in the interest of their life which they do not take any interest in, anyway.
9. What is the problem of equality? Why does Marquis deny that it refutes his views?
The problem of equality is that killing the unborn or the young deprives them of more valuable things than killing an elderly person. Therefore it is worse to kill the young than to kill the elderly based on the FLO theory.
10. What is the contraception objection? Why does Marquis deny that his view necessarily opposes contraception?
