Post on 09-Mar-2015
description
Don Marquis’s Innovative Approach to Abortion
By John Peters
Word Count: 1592
1
Abortion is one of the most divisive issues of modern times. For some, it is a matter of
life and death, and for others, it is an issue of freedom of choices regarding one’s body.
Frequently, debates between those who are pro-life and those who are pro-choice end with
nothing accomplished. Viability and sentience of fetuses are often hotly debated, and countless
specific case studies (including rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is at risk) are
analyzed and reanalyzed. Don Marquis ventures away from the general arguments, though, in
his essay, “Why Abortion Is Immoral.” Instead, he focuses on one claim: “Abortion is murder.”
Marquis explores this concise statement by defining murder and determining whether or not it
applies to fetuses. He concludes that because fetuses have a distinctly human future, killing
them is immoral. Furthermore, Marquis’s thesis is supported by Kant’s Categorical Imperative,
one of the most highly regarded philosophies in modern times. Not only is Marquis’s
straightforward and efficient approach to abortion attractive, but also the validation he receives
from Kantian ethics is extremely appealing.
Don Marquis begins by countering one of the most common arguments against
abortion: the rhetorical onslaught that the pro-life movement frequently receives from the
opposition. Marquis claims that his beliefs are not purely “a symptom of irrational religious
dogma” (109) but rather are based on philosophy and logic and that his thesis is applicable in a
vast majority of abortion cases. None of his remarks are purely theological which few other pro-
life arguments can boast. Herein is where the first appeal to Marquis’s theory lies; no particular
religious affiliation is required to adhere to his thesis. Though this seems fairly simple, it is a
vital aspect of a moral theory. In order to be universal, a moral theory must be accessible to all.
2
The greatest advantage of Marquis’s moral theory is that it does not rely on the
“category of personhood” (111). Regularly, stages in development are arbitrarily labeled as the
“moment of personhood.” These vary from the time of conception to maintaining a heartbeat
to feeling pain and to birth. Each of these instances in a pregnancy has grounds as to why it
could be the defining moment when person status is gained. Pro-life supporters can claim that
having forty-six chromosomes makes a person indeed a person. A more liberal-minded
individual may believe that a fetus does not become a person until it can feel pain like most
humans can. Even further along the spectrum, one may choose to say that not until a fetus is
birthed and no longer dependent on the mother’s womb can it be truly called a person. Each of
these approaches appears to have a relatively equal likelihood of being true. This alone disturbs
Marquis, but he also discovers another error in personhood-centered arguments. Marquis
points out that personhood logic, in regards to some standards (such as independence and
social interaction), “cannot straightforwardly account for the wrongness of killing infants and
young children” (110). Marquis believes that no abortion theory should condone infanticide,
inadvertently or not. Due to these complications, Marquis decides to establish his own
argument.
Marquis chooses not to consider whether or not a fetus is a human; to him, this is
irrelevant. As opposed to deciphering different biological qualities of a fetus, Marquis instead
determines the validity of the pro-life claim that abortion is murder. In order to do this, Marquis
analyzes why he believes murder is wrong. Murder is a multi-dimensional moral issue that
negatively impacts the murderer, the murdered, and the significant others of the murdered. In
order to determine the moral implications of murder, the extent to which each group gets
3
affected must be evaluated. Marquis starts by claiming that it is not the “brutiliz[ing of] the one
who kills” that makes murder wrong (109). Because even though it is obvious that this is a
negative impact, it is not the most significant. Marquis then furthers his argument by identifying
that it is also not the “loss others would experience due to our absence” that makes killing
ultimately wrong (109). It is clear to Marquis that this consequence outweighs the first, but
even so he believes there is a greater consequence. According to Marquis, “. . . killing is wrong,
primarily because the killing inflicts (one of) the greatest possible losses on the victim” (109).
Killing someone deprives him of all of which he currently values and enjoys and all of which he
will come to value and enjoy later in life. A man’s future is the most precious thing that can be
taken from him. Consequently, Marquis concludes that anyone with a “future like ours”
deserves the right to live (110). Therefore, killing a fetus is murder and abortion is immoral.
Marquis criticizes other abortion essays because they are often personhood-centered
and consequently extremely crippled. The ambiguity of the biological definition of “person”
prevents these arguments from ever being definitive; their questionable view on infanticide
prevents these arguments from ever being universal. Marquis notes that his moral theory,
based on the “future like ours” principle does not conflict with accepted beliefs on infanticide
and does not rely on a vague definition. These make Marquis’s argument more effective and
appealing.
Despite the advantages to Marquis’s argument, there is what appears to be a significant
weakness. Some may allege that Marquis’s thesis implies that contraception is immoral: that
the logic that follows for fetuses can also follow for sperm and eggs. Marquis addresses this in
his paper by saying, “Nothing at all is denied such a future by contraception. . . because there is
4
no nonarbitrarily identifiable subject of the loss in the case of contraception” (112). Marquis
elaborates saying that there are “millions of possible combinations” prior to fertilization (111).
Because there is no entity to which you can assign moral standing, there is no need to consider
its rights. Therefore, contraception is morally permissible by Marquis’s standards.
Others may have an issue with some of the specific, less common abortions. In regards
to abortions that occur because the life of the mother is at risk, Marquis appears to believe that
they are morally acceptable. He states “. . . abortion could be justified in some circumstances,
only if the loss consequent on failing to abort would be at least as great [as the loss entailed in
an abortion]” (111). The loss of the fetus is significant, but because the loss of the mother is as
great as the loss of the fetus, abortion when the life of the mother is at stake is allowed.
However, there is no evidence that Marquis would be willing to declare abortions in the cases
of rape and incest as morally permissible. Because Marquis does not explicitly mention any
exception in his rule, the reader must assume that Marquis’s “future like ours” theory still
applies.
New ideas about moral issues are often rejected if the logic behind them is not
supported by past, established schools of thought. Certain philosophies have persisted through
the years because people adhere to their principles. Therefore, if a new proposal on an issue
fails to find roots in a philosophy, it will also most likely fail to find roots in the contemporary
society. Modern authors must substantiate their arguments with sound logic and support from
the past in order for their work to be considered valid.
Marquis’s logic in his essay holds parallels with Kant’s Categorical Imperative and
deontological ethics. Kant states that “to be beneficent when we can is a duty” (55). It is not the
5
end result of an action that should be considered before behaving but rather the extent to
which the action meets the Categorical Imperative. Each action performed must follow this
imperative for it to be moral: “Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will
that it should become a universal law” (57). Marquis uses this philosophy (without specifically
mentioning it) to outline the immorality of abortion.
As previously explained, Marquis begins his argument against abortion by defining
murder. Then, using this definition that Marquis created, one can apply the Categorical
Imperative to abortion. Unjustified killing is murder and is immoral in all situations. For if
murder became universal law, the law “would necessarily destroy itself” (56). The thesis that
Marquis creates is consistent with Kantian principles. Frequently, philosophers make exceptions
for the morality of abortion in cases of incest and rape, but Marquis refuses to compromise his
principles. As Kant’s Categorical Imperative demands, Marquis’s assertions are unwavering,
even on a universal scale. Marquis believes that it is a duty to prevent unnecessary killing ergo
abortion is immoral.
Marquis’s focused and poignant argument is one of the most powerful defenses of the
pro-life movement. Though some may criticize it for its simplicity, it does the task it is supposed
to: it determines the morality of abortion. Marquis, himself, realizes that he has created an
“elementary theory of the wrongness of killing” that fails to address some other moral
dilemmas, but this does not faze him (110). He acknowledges that his theory may have
implications for animal rights and euthanasia (and that those implications may be serious) but
claims that it “is another matter” to discuss these issues (110). The focus of his thesis is
abortion, and Marquis outlines a defense of the pro-life movement that is applicable in most
6
situations. Backed by Kantian deontological ethics and thoroughly scrutinized argumentation,
Marquis’s “Why Abortion Is Immoral” effectively establishes an accessible pro-life philosophy.
7