Why Abortion Is Immoral Don Marquis

Outline Debate about personhood (not fruitful) Is/ought Problem Marquis’ View on killing in general Alternative: Desire view of killing Clarification: Abortion permitted in some cases (a fetus with no future) Objections – Rape Case,

Argumnets for 1. The unborn is an innocent person from conception 2. It is wrong to kill an innocent person 3. Abortion is the killing of an innocent person 4. Therefore, abortion is wrong Objection: fetus is not a person Personhood: rationality, can make contracts, is a member of community, etc. Even though it shows that the argument does not work, we cannot establish on the basis of this notion of person that abortion is permitted.

Argument against 1. The unborn is not a person until birth (and thus does not have a right to life) 2. It is wrong to kill an innocent person 3. Abortion before birth would not be the killing of an innocent person 4. If abortion before birth is not the killing of an innocent person, it is permissible. 5. Therefore, abortion before birth is permissible

Potential Person 1. The unborn is an innocent potential person from conception 2. It is wrong to kill an innocent potential person 3. Abortion is the killing of an innocent potential person 4. Therefore, abortion is wrong Objection: every egg is a potential person – so, should we inseminate every egg, because it can become a person?

ABORTION IS (ALMOST ALWAYS) IMMORAL “abortion is . . . seriously immoral, and that it is in the same moral category as killing an innocent adult human being.” Debate hinges on what makes killing an innocent adult human being the morality of abortion is determined by whether or not a fetus is the sort of being whose life it is seriously wrong to end Qualification: setting aside difficult cases (e.g. pregnancies that threaten the life of the mother, or pregnancies that result from rape or incest, or genetically defective fetus)

THE METAPHYSICAL ISSUE The metaphysical question concerns the concept of a person, and involves listing all of those things or conditions that we take to be necessary to define the concept and that are jointly sufficient as a definition of a person. Does a being have to . . . Be conscious to be a person? Have a certain level or understanding of things? Have the ability to make decisions for herself? Have a certain kind of body? Be able to act and to take responsibility for his actions? Have the ability to form part of a society?

CONNECTING METAPHYSICS AND MORALITY The metaphysical question and the moral question have to be tied together in such a way that we can determine both when a being is or becomes a person, and when killing a person or killing something that can become a person is and is not justified. Concerning fetuses, this is the question of when a fetus becomes a person or has enough characteristics of a person so that the moral laws that protect people from harm are to be applied to the fetus. It is also the question of when a fetus is insufficiently developed to the point that the rights of a person do not apply to it in virtue of its not having enough of the characteristics required of beings to be considered human.

General Is/Ought Problem Can we ever tell anything normative from a description? David Hume argues that we cannot – we cannot derive an ought from an is (a normative statement from a descriptive statement) General problem for dividing debate into personhood and morality We need something more – that says whatever is a person demands moral treatment. Another Example: Studies of decision procedures For instance, gambler’s fallacy – throw a die, you get 10 6’s in a row – at some point people will switch because they think 11 6’s are really improbable. But, this is a fallacy – it is equally likely that a 6 will come up on the 11, 12 or any other throw because each throw is independent of the others. Studying how people think when gambling, does not tell us how we ought to be thinking when gambling. Another Example: Polls 90% of Americans do not exercise Does not tell us anything about whether we should or shouldn’t exercise?

WHAT MAKES KILLING WRONG I The essence of the answer to the abortion problem has to focus on what it is that makes killing wrong. The effect that killing has on the one who is killed is that it robs that person of the possibility of having a valuable future. “The loss of one’s life deprives one of all the experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted one’s future.” “Killing someone is wrong because the killing inflicts (one of) the greatest possible losses on the victim”

Other Views on Why Killing is Wrong The desire account = df. People have a desire to live, and what makes killing wrong is that it interferes with this desire. Objection 1: seriously wrong to kill persons who have little or no desire to live Objection 2: we desire life because we value the goods of life” and not simply life itself. It is the loss of the goods of one’s future, not the interference with the fulfillment of the strong desire to live, which accounts for the wrongness of killing.

Does Marquis Solve (or Avoid) the Is/Ought Problem? Even though he criticized arguments for or against abortion that focus on personhood, he simply assumes a particular view of what a morally relevant feature – a being with a future, that can experience enjoyment, etc. But, the same questions can be raised about his account: What is it about a being’s future that makes it valuable and so wrong to kill that being? How does he get an ought (it is immoral to kill a fetus) from this particular view of a morally relevant being. He mentions this problem: says his paper is about abortion of human fetuses, and not about animal rights, and leaves the matter undeveloped. This just sounds like he is side-stepping the issue.

Some Cases Abortion are Permitted But how then does his theory handle the killing of retarded or mentally unhealthy people who have no prospect of a valuable future like ours? Committed to the view that aborting a fetus that will not develop normally (severally impaired) is permitted

Objection: Abortion and Rape In cases of Rape, does a woman have a right to have an abortion, even though the fetus is normally developed and will have a future wherein it will make plans, have life-long projects, and enjoyment? Killing any adult being with a valuable future is wrong for that reason; and since a fetus has a valuable future, abortion (where the fetus will have a valuable future) is equivalent to murder A woman who has been raped, has no right to abort and, if she does, it is murder (though she probably does not deserve the same punishment as a murderer)

Objection: Contraception Marquis says that his position does not entail that contraception is wrong This is because contraception is not preventing the value of the future life of a being since there is not yet any being to speak of its having or not having a future life. But, this might be unconvincing. Couldn’t we say that every unfertilized egg ought to be saved and fertilized because it will lead to a being with a valuable future (plans, projects, capacity for enjoyment)? Should we than ban contraception, and fertilize as many eggs as humanly possible?