ARTS2383 Chap.7 Abortion and Human Cloning
Abortion and Human Cloning
The abortion readings test different links in the argument. Marquis explains the wrongness of killing through deprivation of a valuable future, offering a strong presumptive reason against abortion. Thomson asks whether a right to life includes entitlement to another person's bodily support.
The views therefore need not be simple contradictions: one identifies the gravity of a loss, while the other challenges the bridge from status or right to a complete duty of support. The captured cloning material is thin, so this chapter confines cloning to method and conditions rather than inventing an assigned author's case.
What this chapter covers
- 01
Marquis connects the wrongness of killing to deprivation of a valuable future
- 02
The valuable-future account supplies a strong reason without automatically settling every conflict
- 03
Thomson grants personhood for argument and tests whether the claimed entitlement follows
- 04
A right to life does not state by itself what bodily support another person must provide
- 05
Responsibility for dependence can affect duties but requires an additional argument
- 06
Cloning analysis should identify interests and conditions while staying within the available evidence
Worked example · free
Locating the disputed bridge
- +1Explain how deprivation of a valuable future supplies a serious presumptive reason against killing.
- +2Identify the extra inference from that reason to an unrestricted duty of bodily support.
- +1Use Thomson's challenge to test entitlement while distinguishing personhood from permission.
- +2State which further premises about responsibility, burden or withdrawal would be needed for a final judgement.
Key terms
- Valuable future
- The future experiences, projects and enjoyments whose loss is central to Marquis's account of killing.
- Bodily entitlement
- A claimed right to use or receive continuing support from another person's body.
- Presumptive reason
- A reason with genuine weight that can still be challenged or overridden by competing considerations.
- Moral status
- A being's standing as an object of moral concern, rights or duties.
Abortion and Human Cloning FAQ
Do Marquis and Thomson answer the same question?
Only partly. Marquis explains why killing can be a grave loss, while Thomson tests whether a right to life entails bodily support. Their arguments intersect, but a comparison must keep those different targets visible.
Why does granting personhood not end Thomson's argument?
The grant is a strategic assumption. It allows the argument to ask whether even a person with a right to life has every entitlement needed for continued support. The dispute moves from status to the content and limits of rights.
How should cloning be handled with limited source detail?
Define the practice carefully, identify affected interests and formulate necessary conditions for permissibility. Do not attribute a detailed argument to an assigned author when the captured material does not provide one. Evidentiary restraint is part of accurate analysis.
Is a valuable future the same as personhood?
No. The valuable-future account explains a kind of loss that can make killing seriously wrong, while personhood is a status concept often used to ground rights. Treating them as identical hides different arguments and can make a criticism miss the premise Marquis actually relies on.
Why does bodily entitlement require another premise?
A right to life states a powerful claim, but it does not define every service or use of another person's body that the right-holder may demand. The argument must explain the content of the entitlement, the role of consent and responsibility, and any limits created by burden or competing rights.
What makes a cloning conclusion evidence-bounded?
It labels empirical assumptions about safety and relationships, identifies the interests and rights at stake and states necessary conditions rather than an invented assigned doctrine. The conclusion should also say what evidence would change it. Method is appropriate here because the captured cloning extract supplies no usable substantive argument.
Exam move
Draw an argument graph with separate boxes for status, the valuable-future reason, a right to life, bodily entitlement and permissibility. Add arrows only when you can write the missing premise. Then test scope and counterexamples at each arrow. For cloning, practise a conditions-based answer that labels empirical assumptions rather than supplying facts from memory.
Finish by saying exactly which bridge is accepted, rejected or left conditional. Prepare a paired outline in which Marquis explains the gravity of loss and Thomson challenges the content of entitlement. Write one paragraph showing why those moves intersect without being simple opposites. Next, vary responsibility for dependence and state the extra premise needed before it creates a duty.
For cloning, separate safety, consent, identity concerns and family relationships; do not treat a healthy outcome as proof that every relevant interest is protected. In timed work, reserve the final sentence for the unresolved bridge and the condition that would settle it.
