Ethical Framework for Abortion Rights

In his essay, philosopher Don Marquis presents a compelling argument against abortion, grounded in the belief that it is morally wrong because it deprives a fetus of a valuable future. Marquis’s approach attempts to navigate the complex moral landscape by critiquing both the pro-choice and anti-abortion premises. However, while his argument is influential, it lacks certain elements that could make it more robust and inclusive. This essay aims to explore Marquis's argument in detail, critique its shortcomings, and suggest improvements for a more nuanced discussion on the morality of abortion.

Examining Marquis’s Premises

Don Marquis begins his argument by highlighting the limitations of both the pro-choice and anti-abortion premises. According to the pro-choice perspective, a fetus is never a person, which Marquis argues is too narrow. He challenges this by questioning the moral distinction between a 9-month-old fetus and a newborn baby, suggesting that if neither is considered a person, then infanticide might not be regarded as murder. This argument brings to light the complexities of defining personhood and the ethical implications of such definitions.

Conversely, Marquis critiques the anti-abortion premise as being too broad, as it considers a fetus a person from the moment of conception. This would imply that all forms of human life, including genetic material, deserve rights, which is not a widely accepted view. Marquis’s critique here is significant as it underscores the need for a balanced understanding of what constitutes personhood and human rights. However, he fails to provide his own clear standpoint on when a fetus should be considered a person, leaving a gap in his argument that could be better addressed.

The Concept of a Valuable Future

Central to Marquis’s argument is the notion that killing is morally wrong not because of its impact on others but because it deprives the victim of a valuable future. He posits that a valuable future includes experiences, goals, relationships, and personal achievements, and it is this potential that abortion unjustly takes away from a fetus. While this reasoning is compelling, it is not without its issues. Marquis does not thoroughly explore what constitutes a valuable future or if all futures are inherently valuable. Furthermore, he does not address situations where a fetus may not have a valuable future, such as severe medical issues, leaving questions about the flexibility of his moral framework.

Marquis does briefly acknowledge that if a fetus is not expected to have a valuable future, abortion might be morally permissible. However, this point is underexplored in his essay and lacks sufficient criteria for determining what qualifies as a non-valuable future. By not delving deeper into these nuances, Marquis’s argument risks being overly simplistic and failing to account for the diverse circumstances surrounding pregnancy and fetal development.

Critiquing the Omission of Contextual Factors

A significant critique of Marquis's essay is his decision to neglect certain ethical contexts, such as cases of rape. This omission weakens his argument, as it does not account for the complex realities and moral dilemmas faced by pregnant individuals. A comprehensive argument against abortion must consider the rights and circumstances of the mother, as her future and autonomy are also at stake. Ignoring these factors makes it difficult to fully endorse Marquis’s position, as it appears one-sided and lacking empathy for the mother’s situation.

Moreover, Marquis does not address the societal and psychological impacts of forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy resulting from rape. Such scenarios pose ethical questions about the mother's right to choose and her own valuable future, which may be significantly affected by trauma. An argument that aspires to be persuasive and morally sound must grapple with these challenging situations, offering a more holistic view of the ethical landscape surrounding abortion.

Conclusion: Bridging the Gaps

In conclusion, while Don Marquis’s argument against abortion is grounded in the significant notion of a valuable future, it requires further development to be more convincing. A clear thesis statement, addressing when a fetus should be considered a person, and a more comprehensive exploration of what constitutes a valuable future are essential improvements. Additionally, Marquis must consider the broader context of abortion, including the rights and experiences of the mother, to present a more balanced and inclusive argument. By addressing these areas, Marquis’s essay could achieve a deeper understanding and appreciation of the moral complexities surrounding abortion, ultimately elevating its persuasiveness and ethical soundness.

Did you like this example?

1761

93