Don Marquis Rhetorical Analysis

The view that abortion, with some rare exceptions, is an extremely immoral act is the stance Don Marquis takes in his dissertation Why Abortion Is Immoral. In his article, Marquis emphasizes the wrongness of killing, as it deprives one from the potential of having a “future-like-ours.” (Marquis, 1989) He uses this idea to conclude that abortion is immoral because it essentially robs a fetus of having a future of value. However, I would like to point out that in his argument, Marquis fails to consider the fact that the primary reason women wish to abort is because they are certain that they cannot physically and/or emotionally provide for a child. In other words, they are certain that their child will not be provided a future of value. Thus

the purpose of this essay is to use Marquis’s concept of a “future-like-ours” to contradict his own argument of why abortion is immoral, and in doing so, argue that abortion should be permissible since it is the most effective way of preventing a child from an assured future of anguish, pain, and failure.

Don Marquis’s philosophy article Why Abortion is Immoral Marquis presents a new strategy to solve the rift between those of pro-choice and pro-life in a way that ultimately proves the immorality of abortion.

Before Marquis lays down his argument, he proposes the problem in the traditional abortion debate. He explains that because both sides have syllogisms that are equally reasonable and unreasonable, the debate has become intractable, and therefore will continue to remain unresolved. He then begins to develop his argument by proposing the question “is killing wrong? Assuming both parties would agree that it is morally wrong to kill a human being, he explores the ultimate reason why it is wrong to kill; “The loss of one’s life deprives one of

all the experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted one’s future.” (Marquis, 1989) Killing is wrong because it results in the loss of a future of value, or in other words a “future-like-ours.” Marquis then takes his justification to explore some of the virtues it entails. First, it explains why murder is considered to be one of the most horrendous crimes, as it deprives someone of having a future of value. Second, it doesn’t restrict the wrongness of killing to just humans; it also applies to infants, animals, and extraterrestrial creatures since they too, have futures of value. Third, it also provides an argument for the morality of euthanasia, since a person who is suffering immensely has no future of value, making it seem acceptable to euthanize them. Taking the “future-like-ours” concept, Marquis concludes that abortion is ultimately wrong, because it follows the logic that a fetus has the potential for a future of value, and therefore terminating it is “prima facie seriously wrong.” (Marquis, 1989)

According to Marquis’s argument, “future-like-ours” refers to the good future that anyone could expect from life; one of happiness, health, and good experiences.

A “future-like-ours” refers to a life with a high probability of goodness and value; something positive that everyone would wish to have. However, Marquis fails to consider the frequent cases in which a fetus is not capable of having a future of value. Perhaps the reason the woman wishes to abort the baby is because the baby cannot be emotionally or physically provided for, or because genetic screening has shown that the baby to have a severe illness. In such cases, these fetus have a very low chance of having a positive “future-like-ours”. Therefore I would argue Marquis’s logic against him in that abortion should be permissible, because it does not deprive it from a positive future, rather it deprives them of a future of suffering and hardships. Marquis claims that euthanasia is moral because it is the “value of a human’s future which makes killing wrong in this theory,” (Marquis, 1989) and therefore someone who is suffering so much doesn’t have a value in their future. Yet, would this not apply to a fetus who is guaranteed to be born into a life of suffering such as poverty, neglect, and illness? In both situation, the individual that is potentially being terminated has a high likelihood of a future with little enjoyment and value. To illustrate my argument, examine the case of an accidental teenage pregnancy.

The girl’s parents refuse to support her or her baby, and the teenage boy that impregnated her abandons her. In coping with her stress, the pregnant girl resorts to frequent alcohol intake. If the teen decides to follow through with her pregnancy, she will not discontinue her alcohol intake, she will have to drop out of school, and she will have a low paying job. Thus this baby will immediately be born into a life with health problems, poverty, no father, and an uneducated mother who is neglectful. This baby would have a very little potential for a life of enjoyment and good experiences.

Perhaps Marquis would object my argument by proposing adoption as a solution to aborting a baby that the mother feels she cannot provide with a positive future. In doing so, at least the fetus has a potential for a “future-like-ours” with a different family, as opposed to not even been given a chance at all. I would first respond to this objection by emphasizing the fact that while adoption may be an option, it is not the solution to abortion for several reasons. First, it does not prevent issues the child may have at childbirth. In the case that a child is born with a severe illness, adoption will not eradicate this issue, and it may very well make it harder for the child to be adopted. Second, this option ignores the severe and harmful effects that the adoption process has on the child. When an infant is separated from their birth mother and put in an orphanage, they lack the maternal nurture that is fundamental for their development. Not to mention that putting a child up for adoption does not guarantee that they will be adopted; it could takes months or years of living parentless, in orphanages and foster homes. Third, even if the child is adopted into a family, most adopted children still have to face several struggles at different points of their lives. (Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2013) Studies have shown that adopted kids are significantly more prone to issues of identity confusion, feelings of neglect, and low self-esteem, for reasons due to their adoption process. (Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2013) Thus, even if a child is put up for adoption as opposed to aborting it, the child will still not have a high probability for a future-like-ours given the number of issues and negative experiences they will face throughout the adoption process.

In conclusion, I consider Marquis’s notion of a “future-like-ours” to be a strong argument of why killing is immoral, yet a rather weak argument of why abortions are immoral. When considering the