Why Don Marquis's Essay 'Why Abortion Is Immoral'

There are many angles and nuances surrounding the topic of abortion and its morality. Abortion has been a topic of discussion in the United States that has polarized the nation and the two-party system. There are many factors that each side uses to support their argument on the morality of abortion. Who has a right to life? Does the right to life supersede bodily autonomy? Does life begin at conception? All of these questions are philosophical and biological matters that have no objective answer. This creates conflicts of interest from within the government, as each party must have contrary stances. Don Marquis’ paper, titled “Why Abortion is Immoral,” focuses on the moral status of the fetus and makes the assumption that the fetus has a future-like-ours,

He focuses not on the harm or pain inflicted on the fetus but rather on the deprivation of future experiences and life is what makes abortion morally impermissible. Furthermore, Marquis suggests that aborting a fetus is equivalent to killing a grown human being, due to the loss of a potential future. Two counterarguments that Marquis addresses are the discontinuation account and the desired account. The discontinuation account refers to the wrongful death of a person derived from depriving the continuation of experiences, not the future experiences (195). Marquis attempts to counter this argument by expressing this view as inadequate if it does not refer to the “value of the experience that may be discontinued” (1977). Moreover, he provides a scenario in which a person who is enduring pain wants to be euthanized. Is it permissible to take this person’s life for granted, even though they still have a future? These scenarios are not analogous enough to compare the discontinuation account. Marquis’ focus on the future blinds him from seeing the quality of life in the immediate past. One could argue that the fetus never had a past and, hence, cannot be deprived of a

However, potential value is likewise to potential future, it is arbitrary and subjective. Marquis seeks to assert his opinion that possible value is equivalent to existing value. Moreover, he brings up continuity of identity as a factor to consider regarding the development of a fetus to a potential person. Consciousness should be a marker of value. It takes around 24 weeks for a fetus to develop consciousness, and less than one percent of abortions are performed after this time period. Aborting a fetus before the 24-week period does not deprive it of intrinsic values if the fetus is not even conscious. Intrinsic value should be linked to viability when the fetus becomes sentient and aware. A person cannot strip away intrinsic values from a potential consciousness. Lastly, Marquis explores the wrongfulness of killing as a universal concept “It is always prima facie wrong to take a human life” (185). He does not take into account other killings that happen in war and self-defense that are deemed permissible under the proper circumstances. Does a fetus’ right to life surpass the right to life of a person? Marquis argues that under little circumstances is it moral to abort a fetus or a