Why Abortion is NOT immoral?
lilb2648
Marquis-WhyAbortionisImmoralpower-point.pptxWhy Abortion is Immoral
Don Marquis
Marquis’ Aim
Marquis wants to show that the overwhelming majority of deliberate abortions are seriously immoral.
The view that he ultimately defends is a conservative view, but not one that holds that moral status begins at conception, and not one that says there cannot be any exceptions.
He begins by outlining what is wrong with the standard anti-abortion and pro-choice positions.
The Standard Anti-Abortion View
Life is present at the moment of conception.
Fetuses look like babies and possess a human genetic code, so they have full moral status.
Moral Principle: “It is always prima facie seriously wrong to take a human life.”
Therefore, abortion is wrong.
The Standard Anti-Abortion View
The anti-abortionist’s principle is too broad.
The standard anti-abortionist argument implies that it is wrong to end the existence of a living human cancer-cell culture, on the grounds that the culture is both living and human (human genetic code).
The Standard Pro-Choice View
Fetuses are not persons because they are not rational agents or social beings.
Remember Warren’s position – it is very much like this.
Moral Principle: “Being a person is what gives an individual intrinsic moral worth, and it is only seriously prima facie wrong to take the life of a member of the human community.”
The Standard Pro-Choice View
The standard pro-choice principle is too narrow. It leaves out too many people who seem to deserve moral consideration.
The principle does not explain why it is wrong to kill infants or young children or the severely mentally disabled.
New Strategy
We all believe that killing is wrong. But why is it wrong? What MAKES killing an adult human being wrong? Marquis offers a compelling answer to this question, and then he shows that the answer to that question extends in a powerful way to fetuses and their lives.
Why is Killing Wrong?
“What primarily makes killing wrong is neither its effect on the murderer nor its effect on the victim’s friends and relatives, but its effect on the victim. The loss of one’s life is one of the greatest losses one can suffer, because the loss of one’s life deprives one of all the experiences, activities, projects and enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted one’s future. Therefore, killing is wrong, primarily because the killing inflicts (one of) the greatest possible losses to the victim.”
“To describe this as the loss of life can be misleading, however. The change in my biological state does not by itself make killing me wrong. The effect of the loss of my biological life is the loss to me of all those activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments which would otherwise have constituted my future personal life. These activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments are either valuable for their own sakes or are means to something else that is valuable for its own sake. Some parts of my future are not valued by me now, but will come to be valued by me as I grow older and as my values and capacities change.”
Why is Killing Wrong?
The basic idea: What makes killing ANY adult human being seriously wrong is the loss of his or her future. This is supported by two considerations, according to Marquis:
The idea explains why we regard killing as one of the worst crimes. Killing is wrong because it deprives the victim of more than perhaps ANY other crime.
People with AIDS or cancer who know they are dying believe, of course, that dying is a very bad thing for them. They believe that the loss of a future to them that they would otherwise have experienced is what makes their premature death a very bad thing for them.
Implications of Marquis’ View on the Wrongness of Killing
It would be wrong to kill any being who has a future, whether that being is biologically human or not.
Straightforwardly entails that it would be seriously wrong to kill infants and children. Arguments that rely on personhood cannot straightforwardly account for the wrongness of killing infants and children.
Implications for Abortion
The future of a standard fetus includes a set of experiences, projects, activities, and such which are identical with the futures of adult human beings and are identical with the futures of young children. Since the reason that is sufficient to explain why it is wrong to kill human beings after the time of birth is a reason that also applies to fetuses, it follows that abortion is seriously prima facie morally wrong.
The feature that adult humans share with fetuses is the feature of *having a valuable future*. The argument trades on this feature, and not an any feature having to do with “personhood”. This is a great advantage of the argument, because personhood is a hotly contested topic.
The argument shows only that abortion is PRIMA FACIE seriously morally wrong. It does not establish that abortion is seriously morally wrong in any and all circumstances. But – “since the loss of the future to a standard fetus, if killed, is at least as great a loss as the loss of the future to a standard adult human being who is killed, abortion, like ordinary killing, could be justified only by the most compelling reasons.”
“…unless, perhaps, they occur so early in pregnancy that a fetus is not yet definitely an individual.”
Objections to Marquis’ Argument
Your future cannot be valuable to you unless you actually value it. Since fetuses are not aware of their future, they cannot value it, and so it cannot be valuable to them.
Marquis responds with an example that shows that your future can be valuable to you even if you do not value it.
Does the argument imply that use of contraception is immoral?
Marquis says no, because there is not yet any being who is denied a future by the use of contraception.
