Blog post 6

   In "Why Abortion is Immoral," Marquis states that pro-choicers make the claim that "it is only seriously prima facie wrong to take the life of a member of a human community."  I have some objections to that particular statement.  I would pose the question: "Is it okay to take the life of a hermit or an outcast?"  This person is not a member of society but does that mean that their life is not worthwhile?  I would argue that whether or not a person is a member of a human community bears no weight in this discussion.  A person's life should not rely on their role in their community.
   In the same argument, Don Marquis also says that the pro-choicers' claim is generally accepted.  I would argue that that claim is far-reaching and not backed up.  A serial killer is an member of a human community. By claiming that it is widely accepted that taking the life of a member of a human community is prima facie wrong, it is making the claim that even taking the life of a serial killer, for example, is wrong.  The question of whether or not taking a serial killer's life is permissible is not what is in question here, however it should be noted that the fate of this serial killer is not generally accepted.  There is much debate about the morality of the death penalty.   It could be argued that a serial killer is not a member of the human community.  In the Merriam-Webster's dictionary definition of community, it is defined as a group of people who live in the same area.  This would show that a serial killer could definitely be a part of a community, and still have the question of whether or not it is wrong to take his or her life up for debate.