Comparing Don Marquis's Abortion And Infanticide

In ‘Abortion and Infanticide’, Michael Tooley discusses whether an unborn child and/or newborn baby fits the definition of a person. He argues that only persons have a right to life, and as foetuses and newborn infants are not persons they do not have a right to life, therefore, abortion and infanticide are morally permissible. In this paper, I will discuss Don Marquis’s objection to this theory in his paper ‘Why abortion is immoral’ and give my reasoning as to why I agree with aspects from both sides of the argument.

Within his paper ‘Abortion and Infanticide’ Tooley defines a person as a being who is capable of desiring to continue as a subject of experience and other mental states. In other words, he believes that an active interest must

be held by the being in preserving his or her life in order to have the right to live that life. According to Tooley, foetuses and newborn babies do not meet the above definition of a person and therefore do not have a right to life. Tooley agrees that there is little difference between a foetus shortly before it is born and a newborn baby. Based on these assertions Tooley contends that abortion and infanticide are morally permissible, as an unborn child and/or newborn baby do not possess the concept of a continuing self, unlike an adult human who possesses the desire to live, and therefore would be morally impermissible to kill. Tooley also questions why it is considered wrong to kill an unborn human but morally permissible to kill an unborn kitten.
Tooley uses this kitten example to justify his argument.

The story goes, you have a kitten that will grow into an adult cat. Based on Tooley’s theory, this cat would lack the properties that give moral standing, just as a foetus or new born baby does. However, let’s just say this kitten was injected with magic chemical that makes the kitten grow to have a human level of consciousness, therefore it will have the properties that give it moral standing. As the kitten grows into a cat, it has the potential to have moral standing (Tooley, 1972). Just as an unborn child does as it grows into an adult. Personally I don’t agree with this analogy, as a human child will always have the potential to grow into a human adult with moral standing however, injecting a kitten to give it moral standing can be seen as changing the abilities of the kitten instead of realising them (Morriss, 2002).

Don Marquis’s opposes Tooleys view. He argues that abortion is, except possibly in rare cases, seriously immoral, and that it should be placed in the same moral category as killing an innocent human being (Marquis, 1989 p. 183). His belief is that killing someone is wrong because the victim suffers the greatest loss one can suffer, the loss of life. This loss deprives one of all experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments that would have constituted as ones future (Marquis, 1989 p. 189). Marquis’s argument is summarised below;

1. If X has a future like ours of great value, and

the killing of X deprives it of this future, than killing X is indeed morally wrong.
2. If a foetus has a future like ours of great value then killing the foetus deprives it of that future.
3. Killing a foetus is morally wrong.
4. Abortion is killing a foetus.
Therefore, abortion is morally wrong (Qcc.cuny.edu,2015).
This account of wrongness of killing that Marquis defends in his paper, also extends to the killing of children and infants. Whilst Tooley believes that newborns and infants do not have any desire to life and therefore do not have a right to that life, Marquis describes children and infants as having futures of value, and for that reason the taking of a defenceless babies life would be seriously wrong.
Within his paper, Marquis illustrates examples of how an individual entity could have the right to something even though it may not be something they understand, recognise, desire or acknowledge (Marquis, 1989). Using a suicidal teenager as an examples, Marquis questions whether this person would still retain their right to life, even though they no longer have the desire to live that life. Seemingly, this statement alone seems to blur Tooleys line of distinction between persons and humans, and desires and interests (Hibbard, 2008).
Having considered both Tooley and Marquis’s arguments on abortion, my view on this topic comes from both sides of the discussion.

In Abortion and Infanticide, Tooley states that he is inclined to believe that a foetus is human well before birth (Tooley, 1972 p. 42). This I believe to be true also. Where my opinion differs to Tooleys and becomes more in line with Marquis is that I believe that during the pregnancy this human organism becomes a person. For me personally, this point in time would be by the twelfth week. After this period, except in exceptional circumstances, I believe the killing of a foetus is morally wrong, and as abortion is the killing of a human foetus this therefore makes abortion also morally wrong. This also accounts for infanticide. Once a child has been born alive to a mother, that child has a right to life. For me the intentional killing of an innocent and defenceless baby is never

justifiable.
In conclusion, I have discussed both Tooley and Marquis’s sides of the abortion argument. Whilst, Tooley maintains that a foetus and newborn child lack personhood and therefore lack the right to life, Marquis’s opposed view of a foetus and/or newborn baby having a future of value and deserving of life holds more true to my moral compass.