Upon thorough inspection, I have found some flaws in Marquis’ argument.
Marquis tries to argue that “personhood” is not the moral category in question with regards to the moral permissibility of abortion.
His central argument revolves around the idea that it is prima facie wrong to kill adult humans because doing so results in the victim’s loss of the value of its future.
He concludes that it is therefore prima facie wrong to kill fetuses because it also results in a loss of a valuable “future life like ours.” However, Judith Thompson and Margaret Little are able to provide more reasonable arguments for what should be considered the most important factor in deciding how to deal with abortion.
However, neither the potential person (fetus with a future-like-ours) or the possible person (zygote prevented by contraception) actually exist.
Because of this, it becomes difficult to understand how a potential person can be a subject of harm anymore than a possible person can.At one point Marquis even says that morally permissible abortions would be rare under his argument-unless they occurred early enough in pregnancy when a fetus is not yet a definite “individual.” So, is personhood important to him or not? Is it then wrong to use contraceptives because possible egg and sperm pairs (zygotes) are prevented from having a future like ours?Marquis says that the immorality of contraception cannot be argued for with his “future-like-ours” analysis because there is no identifiable subject that can suffer this loss.But he claims that someone (the fetus) has a future like ours and therefore should not be deprived of such future.If personhood is irrelevant, then it is unclear that there actually is someone (a person) who can be deprived of such things. In addition to assuming that a fetus is not a person yet still has a right to life because with their death comes a deprivation of a future like ours, people who use Marquis’ argument could then argue that it is wrong to “kill” fertilized, but not yet implanted, eggs.The future of cloning looks very bright as the scientists are constantly progressing by leaps and bounds.However, it is not quite sure whether the future of cloning will help mankind or be the cause for its destruction.The ageing caudillo sees the cloning project, which attempts to replicate White Udder, a cow that became legendary for its milk output in the 1980s, as a solution to Cuba's chronic shortage of dairy products ”.The benefits to Castro of resurrecting the animal, which died 21 years ago, extend well beyond its impact on the milk industry.A successful cloning would be a coup for Cuban biotechnology, a pointed reminder to the US that it is not always in the vanguard of scientific development, and a boost to the prestige of a crumbling regime.The tangle of motives that has led Castro to become a cheerleader for biotechnology is a cautionary tale for anyone who imagines that the industry can be made subject to effective international regulation.