Seriously? The assumption that the fetus is a person is built into Marquis’ argument — in the very words. He considers a fetus “someone” which is a person. Do I really have to point this out? Even if you took that out and replaced it with something, the Jake Allison would be correct, destroying anything that has potential future value is immoral. You’d be an immoral person just by living and eating. It’s a utterly absurd argument to say Marquis has this new idea that sidesteps the question of person-hood altogether. “Someone” is inherently referring to a person. And even if you accept that somehow “someone” does NOT refer to a person, Jake’s argument still stands. Why would you apply the reasoning that something’s worth is based on future value and apply it exclusively to humans? It’s completely an arbitrary classification to limit it to humans. Even by applying it humans only, you once again categorize the fetus as human being, which makes it circular reasoning. No, you’d have to apply it to animals, germs, plants, anything with value, because it is a philosophy that it is wrong to take away potential value of things. Hell destroying a rock would be immoral. This is the worst argument I’ve ever heard against abortion.

Psychology graduate and law student. I'm a paraplegic writer interested in everything, especially psychology, science, history, law, politics & philosophy.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store