liamharvey's blog

I first went to the Durfee Conservatory to find a plant to take a picture of. I chose to take pictures of the plant Camellia Japonica which was located in the first room upon entering the conservatory. The Camellia Japonica is a small tree, which was found on the right as i entered the conservatory. I identified the tree by finding a small label that read “Camellia Japonica” at the top of the box the tree was planted in. There were similar trees which had white flowers; the tree photographed was the first in the line and had pink flowers. Two pictures were taken; the first from about three feet away to get a full image of the tree. The second picture was taken from about three inches to get a close up of one of the tree’s flowers.

I then made a multi panel figure using inkscape. To make the figure, I used the two pictures taken at the conservatory and found a world map online. The three pictures were imported into inkscape. The first picture of the full tree was placed in the upper left corner. The close up of the flower was then placed in the right corner and the world map was placed below both of the taken pictures. On the world map, the fill option was selected to fill in Japan, Camellia Japonica’s country of origin. Next, f8 was pressed to use text boxes. To the left at the top corner of each picture, a text box was made. The full plant picture was labelled “A”, the close up labelled “B”, and the world map labelled “C”.

In “Why Abortion is Immoral”, Marquis argues against the morality of abortion by first explaining why killing other people is wrong. This discussion of why killing people is wrong later segues into his reasoning for why abortion is immoral; Marquis’ “future-like-ours” argument. Marquis explains that killing is wrong because “The loss of one’s life deprives one of all the experiences, activities, projects and enjoyments that otherwise would have constituted one’s future” (189). Marquis later connects the wrongness of killing to the immorality of abortion, suggesting that the standard fetus’ future includes the same experiences, activates etc. of an adult human. Marquis goes further to suggest that because the promise of a future is enough to explain why it is wrong to kill a newborn baby, it follows that it is prima facie wrong to abort a fetus.

In “Why Abortion is Immoral”, Marquis argues against the morality of abortion by first explaining why killing other people is wrong. This discussion of why killing people is wrong later segues into his reasoning for why abortion is immoral; Marquis’ “future-like-ours” argument. Marquis explains that killing is wrong because “The loss of one’s life deprives one of all the experiences, activities, projects and enjoyments that otherwise would have constituted one’s future” (189). Marquis later connects the wrongness of killing to the immorality of abortion, suggesting that the standard fetus’ future includes the same experiences, activates etc. of an adult human. Marquis goes further to suggest that because the promise of a future is enough to explain why it is wrong to kill a newborn baby, it follows that it is prima facie wrong to abort a fetus.

Summary of Marquis, “Why Abortion Is Immoral”

In this article, Marquis argues that abortion is immoral with his “future-like-ours” argument. Marquis compares his argument with several other arguments regarding abortion; including the discontinuation and desire accounts.  

1. What makes killing wrong?

Marquis begins section II by discussing many possible explanations one may give for the immorality of killing one another.

-        Explanation 1: Brutalization. The first argument Marquis presents is simply that killing our own “brutalizes” the killer. However, Marquis refutes this explanation by arguing that to kill, one must be accustomed to the performance extremely immoral acts. Thus, the brutalization caused by murder does not provide an explanation for why killing is immoral.

-        Explanation 2: The loss others feel. Marquis then turns his attention to the idea that killing is wrong because of the loss that those who know the victim feel when that person is killed. However, Marquis argues against this by arguing that killing a hermit, who is isolated, would still be immoral even though there is no one to feel a loss by this hermit’s murder.

-        Explanation 3: Effect on the victim. Marquis then turns to what he argues is the true reason that killing is immoral; it’s effect on the victim. Marquis argues that those who are killed experience the greatest loss that one can experience; the loss of their future. This argument becomes Marquis’ main argument in the paper which he refers to as the “future-like-ours” argument.

3. People’s Requirement to Help Others.

-        Thomson suggests that there are no laws which require people to help others, aside from abortion. She sates that men are not legally required to be even minimally decent Samaritans by law, but women are required to be good Samaritans by the law not allowing abortion. (63)

-        Thomson suggests that there is no foul in extricating oneself from helping others. In the violinist example, she states that there is no injustice in choosing not to help. She uses this and the Fonda example to suggest that there is no special responsibility to help others in these scenarios. (64-65)

-        Thus, men and women who have children bear a special responsibility to provide for their children. But this responsibility stems from parents assuming the responsibility. So, Thomson suggests that people do not bear any kind of responsibility in helping unless they have assumed such responsibility. If parents chose not to have an abortion, they assume responsibility for the child. (65-66)

-        Finally, a comparison between a 14-year-old rape victim and a woman who is 7 months pregnant is made. Thomson suggests that the women is unjust in having an abortion if her reason in doing so is to allow her to go on a trip abroad. However, because the 14-year-old did not consent or assume responsibility for the child, it is permissible to have an abortion. Thomson likens this to a woman wanting a fetus terminated vs. putting the child up for adaption stating that the unnecessary death is unjust. (66-67)

2. Good Samaritans, Minimally Decent Samaritans or Not a Samaritan at all.

-        Example 3: Man on the road. Thomson refers to a story from the Bible where a man is robbed and left injured on the road. A priest and then a Levite pass by and neither offer help. However, a good Samaritan passes by and offers help to the man, providing care and brings him to an inn. Jesus tells his people to do as the good Samaritan had done. Thomson however states that this may be urging people to do more than they are morally required to do. (62-63)

-        Example 4: Kitty Genovese. This example discusses the murder of Kitty Genovese, who was killed while 38 people had either stood by or heard as she was murdered but did nothing to help. No one called the police, which Thomson state a minimally decent person would have done. Thomson argues however, if helping Kitty put the people in danger of their own lives, then they are not morally required to help. She uses this conclusion to argue that people are thus not morally required to give a long stretch of their lives, be it nine years or nine months to help others. She states that people are not morally required to sustain the life of a person who has no special right. (62-63)

Figure 1. House Finch perched on a tree branch. Creative commons licensed image by Nicole Beaulac https://www.flickr.com/photos/nicolebeaulac/15071388060/in/

-        Example 2: Chocolate. In this example, a box of chocolates was initially given to two brothers, but the older brother had eaten them all for himself, acting unjustly. In this modified example however, the chocolates were only given to the older brother. If the older brother refuses to share, Thomson argues, he is being greedy but just. (60-61)

-        Example 3: Henry Fonda. In the initial Henry Fonda example. A man with a cool hand can save the authors life, but he is across the country and must fly to her to save her life. However, in this new example, Fonda need only walk across the room and touch the author to save her life. Here he is making little sacrifice to help in comparison to the initial example. (61)

-        Thomson argues that even when the task is easy, it does not make refusing to do so unjust, She states “Nobody is morally requires to make large sacrifices of health, of all other interests and concerns, of all other duties and commitment, for nine years, or even nine months, in order to keep another person alive.” (61-62)

Summary of Thomson, “A Defense of Abortion”

In this article, Thomson defends abortion using several metaphors. In section 5 until the end, Thomson discusses the previous metaphors further by evaluating them as easy or difficult situation, good Samaritan and minimally decent Samaritan scenarios, and discusses when there is a requirement to help.

1. Easy vs. Difficult, Long-term vs. Short-term

Thomson discusses cases in which it would be morally indecent to detach a person from your body at the cost of their life.

-        Example 1: Violinist. Thomson refers to the violinist example where you wake up to find yourself attached to a famous violinist against your will. Being attached from your kidney to the violinist’s heart is keeping the violinist alive. In the initial example, you must remain attached to the violinist for 9 years so that the violinist may live. In this modified scenario, the violinist needs you only for an hour, and being attached to the violinist wouldn’t affect your health. Thomson suggests that in this scenario, it is unjust to disconnect yourself even though you did not consent because you make little sacrifice to keep another alive. (60)

Brachypodium distachyon is worthwhile to study because it is related to many of the grass species which we use for food, feed, and biomass; being closely related to rice, corn and wheat (Yang, et al., 2010). B. distachyon is a monocot, and because many monocot species are used for bioethanol production, it has become a model organism for advancing our understanding of species used to produce biofuels (Man Bo, et al., 2016). The plant is also excellent for laboratory use because of its quick regeneration time, small size, and compact genome (Yang, et al., 2010). B. distachyon is also well studied, and as a result its full genome had been sequenced and is an available resource for those studying it.