Introduction
The judgment of human actions being wrong or right depends on experience. As Marquis puts it that it is immoral to withdraw life from any normal person under normalcy in respective conditions. He presents that the most important thing to ever hind a person to pursue is the stand of his or her future. Sinnott-Armstrong, argues reasonably that Marquis argument lacks enough philosophical grounding and reasons to support the argument.
A typical anti-abortionist argues on the basis that life starts at conception and the fetus looks like a baby as it possess the human traits in the sense that it has genetic code which are both sufficient and necessary in the human beings lives . Anti- abortionist believe that the truth about all this claims are known and are obvious amongst the people, they also believe that abortion is actually a kind of murder if the claims are established and become sufficient. Any fetuses are alive and have a right to coexist, live just like any other. The anti-abortionist are using moral principles for instance the prima facie. That it is a criminal offence to end the life of a person, as well it is prima facie cut short the life of a baby, in this case the essence of morality takes course since it has been stipulated that life is important and no one has a right to deprive the other the right to life.
Sinnott-Armstrong proves that the future of a thing is not worthy while considering than that of normal and living organism as Marquis argument lacked a clear understanding on who has the future. His argument is of strong grounding as fetus is a developing thing not worthy calling an organism as it lacks the mental state to warrant an organism identity to be a person. Fetus is surely something just a union of sperm and ova whose future is not determine and it is capable of losing its future. So as the usual sperms that get destroyed for the sake of the fetus development it is worthy performing an abortion for the sake of an existing human being unlike of the foreseen zygote.
Marquis argues that life of the infant is more futuristic than of the old. It is of no doubt that human beings are diverse in terms of needs and concerns and so the generality in determination of different entities’ future by using time frame and age as the measure of the value of future is not realistic. The question of, whose life can be sacrificed for the sake of whom? As caused various critiques to various philosophical writings including Marquis Letter. Who argues more on the future life of ours though he never gave clears ways of determining the real value of the future of life making the theory impractical to some extent.
He claimed that the theory of the future life of ours also important and applicable to the lives of the senior people in the society. He claims that the seniors have already enjoyed much of their future of our life (FLO) making them making the life of the future more important because their future life is still long giving those more reasons to live than their mothers are. He claims that the future of the fetus is likely to be more productive compared to that of seniors, it is therefore reasonable to end the life of the seniors compared to that of the fetus. Armstrong opposed this theory in relation to old people was opposed because it had the social impact and side effects in the society. Therefore, the best approach to answering this to consider the pain of losing that the life of the parties involved can cause to the community.
Passions of the ant-abortionists are becoming higher sense there are both plausibility and difficulties, it is important to believe the importance of the moral sense of life and the philosophical explanations concerning morality. It is brutal to kill as it does not only bring an effect to the victim but also essentially to the murderer. The loss of life constitutes depriving someone of all the enjoyment one would have in future the experiences the learning and the essence of living life to the fullest. In explaining the morality and wrongness of abortion as ending the future of the child who would become a great personality, in future sanctity of the human life need to be respected there is the essence of these theories of human sanctity; seem to hold the notion of the use of active euthanasia, which has been considered seriously wrong. In this context, Armistrong’s argument do examine the specific way that Marquis reframes his argument for instance on the factuality of the statement “Loss Future” which to its both moral and neutral definition which requires the performance of an act by the winning party in competition thus having the other a loser.
The loss of the old person who is well known to the community and who has contributed to the society even if he or she under reasonable circumstance for instance abortion is so much detrimental in the society as the considerable alternative of the infant cannot replace the gap that could be otherwise left behind by the mother. Therefore, Sinnott-Armstrong’s argument that we cannot lose what we never had is to go by as the community had the mother.
In another viewpoint, Sinnott-Armstrong’s argument is the evident fact that various children who accidentally had their mother died during their birth or the death being generally associated to their birth usually get psychological problems as they feel the guilt of murder of their own parents. The alternative commonly laid in place to avoid this psychological problem to the child is to hide the fate to the child. Therefore, there is no reason to claim to be helping a child who will have two compromising issues in his or her life that is either psychological tortured and guilt or being isolated from the truth.
Sinnott-Armstrong argues reasonably against the circumstances that Marquis claims to warrant abortion. Such a ways are not clearly expressed and their extremity is not defined. Any philosophical hence scientific writing having misconception and gaps in knowledge are worthy while scraping. Armstrong should have suggested the following circumstance that could have render Marquis argument valid. Extreme circumstance can only justify the commission of an abortion, however for marquis the extreme situations are not clearly defined as the extremity of the circumstance are not defined. I tend to think that there exist no extreme than live and so no human circumstance that can compromise the live of another.
However, to some extremes of my support to the existence of circumstance rendering abortion morally valid is only and only when the life of the mother of the infant in question is in extreme danger and there exist no otherwise to rescue her except of aborting the infant. Furthermore, the extent of the danger should be measurable enough to have specific determinations being considered for instance the only person that can warrant and undertake an abortion is a qualified health professional who to the best of his or her knowledge determines that the life the mother is actually in danger and no otherwise abortion is the only way.
The term person is defined in psychology and possess various traits a problem arises when to see a trait as important than the other , the basis of life and human dignity need to be respected as much as the pro-choice position tend to weaken the point it is immoral to end the human life. The anti-abortionist can demand explanations from the pro-choicer on the connection of the psychological of criteria of a person being a being and the essence of being wrong in killing a person. Feinberg attempted to explain the objection, concerning human being who has personal traits, moral attributes and has personal identities; it is because people are conscious.
Abortion is actually a deprivation of the human life the need to protect the human rights in most countries it is illegal to abort though under special circumstances abortion is prohibited to save life, since it is wrong to kill a potential person who would have been productive and get greater experiences.
Don Marquis differs in his argument in relation to how the other philosophers argue out their views and ideas. He puts his concentration on the immorality of this act of abortion. He argues aggressively on the reasons that make killing a wrong thing claiming when you kill a person, they will be deprived of several things including experiences, enjoyments, as well as projects that one would have in the future (Walter 1977). He argues that abortion is not morally permissible because it denies others to have a future like ours of which they are entitled.
He also claimed that if you deprive someone a future like ours it is implies that you have murdered someone and is morally unacceptable in the society therefore makes it illegal and immoral unless it is under certain special circumstances for instance if the life of the mother is at risk. Abortion deprives the fetus the future like ours making them unable to have the life experiences and enjoyments human beings are entitled to in their future lives, this amounts to denial of human right to life making abortion morally impermissible. In a moral sense, abortion is morally unacceptable with exception to some circumstances. On the other hand, Armstrong criticizes Marquis Theory on the future life of ours.
In relation to the promised future, life is all about chances therefore the quality and quantity of future life cannot be determined therefore Marquis Theory on the promised future makes it not practical in real life. The future life of ours theory is therefore not the best way to justify the protection o the life of the fetus because it does not help in determination of the existence of that future life of the fetus. Armstrong criticized Marquis Theory based on the future life of ours as unreliable because it fails to determine the possibilities of that life existing.
On his argument, he concentrated more on the rights of the fetus forgetting that the pregnant woman also had a right to live and controlling her own body. This theory is therefore contradictory in that it ignores some aspects of life of the pregnant woman. This theory is strongly opposed by Armstrong claiming that it is not reliable because it assumes the real values of life of the pregnant woman and those of the senior people in the society while giving more concentration on the life of the fetus.
Armstrong’s response to the argument of Marquis is generally worthy while moving with as it clearly addresses the ambiguity in thinking presented on the issue of moral and neutral loss by an individual attached to abortion. The claims by Marquis do not hold a justifiable ground to generalize the issue on the wrong judgment of abortion. Marquis seem to undermine the fact that the future of something living is determined by experience and therefore the fetus begins to have future when it is delivered as a young baby born. Finally, it is true that we cannot lose what we never had (Walter 1977).
References
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, (1977), you can’t lose what you ain’t never had: A reply to marquis on abortion, Philosophical Studies 96: 59–72, 1997. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands
Don Marquis, (2010), why abortion is immoral, the journal of philosophy, Vol. 86, No. 4 (April 1989), pp. 183-202
