Does a Normal Foetus Really Have a Future of Value? A Reply to Marquis

Bioethics 19 (2):131–45 (2005)

Authors
Rob Lovering
College of Staten Island (CUNY)
Abstract
The traditional approach to the abortion debate revolves around numerous issues, such as whether the fetus is a person, whether the fetus has rights, and more. Don Marquis suggests that this traditional approach leads to a standoff and that the abortion debate “requires a different strategy.” Hence his “future of value” strategy, which is summarized as follows: (1) A normal fetus has a future of value. (2) Depriving a normal fetus of a future of value imposes a misfortune on it. (3) Imposing a misfortune on a normal fetus is prima facie wrong. (4) Therefore, depriving a normal fetus of a future of value is prima facie wrong. (5) Killing a normal fetus deprives it of a future of value. (6) Therefore, killing a normal fetus is prima facie wrong. In this paper, I argue that Marquis’s strategy is not different since it involves the concept of person—a concept deeply rooted in the traditional approach. Specifically, I argue that futures are valuable insofar as they are not only dominated by goods of consciousness, but are experienced by psychologically continuous persons. Moreover, I argue that his strategy is not sound since premise (1) is false. Specifically, I argue that a normal fetus, at least during the first trimester, is not a person. Thus, during that stage of development it is not capable of experiencing its future as a psychologically continuous person and, hence, it does not have a future of value.
Keywords abortion  fetus  future of value
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2005.00430.x
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Intentionality, an Essay in the Philosophy of Mind.Andrew Woodfield - 1983 - Philosophical Quarterly 36 (143):300-303.
Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind.Richard E. Aquila - 1983 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 46 (1):159-170.
Abortion and Infanticide.Nancy Davis - 1985 - Philosophical Review 94 (3):436.
An Argument That Abortion is Wrong.Don Marquis - 2007 - In Russ Shafer-Landau (ed.), Ethical Theory: An Anthology. Blackwell. pp. 439--450.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Savulescu's Objections to the Future of Value Argument.Don Marquis - 2005 - Journal of Medical Ethics 31 (2):119-122.
Reply to Di Nucci: Why the Counterexamples Succeed.C. Strong - 2009 - Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (5):326-327.
A Critique of “the Best Secular Argument Against Abortion”.C. Strong - 2008 - Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (10):727-731.
Abortion: Strong's Counterexamples Fail.Ezio Di Nucci - 2009 - Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (5):304-305.
Killing, Letting Die, and the Morality of Abortion.Anton Tupa - 2009 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 26 (1):1-26.
A Defence of the Potential Future of Value Theory.Don Marquis - 2002 - Journal of Medical Ethics 28 (3):198-201.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
504 ( #9,418 of 2,285,431 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
41 ( #22,496 of 2,285,431 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature