For those familiar with Marquis' stance on abortion, that is the stance that I find most compelling.
For those unfamiliar, Marquis poses the question of why it is unacceptable to murder someone (note the difference between
murder and
kill). He then presents what he thinks is the best answer to that question: it is unacceptable to murder someone: you rob them of a valuable future when your own life is not at stake.
The term "valuable future" is in broad use; it does not mean a comfortable life, financial success, or any such connotation. It means simply that one has the ability to give something to, and take something from life. And it makes sense in societal context; if we find someone to not have the capacity for a valuable future, we have no qualms in taking it away (e.g. criminals being imprisoned or flat-out executed).
The argument, then, extends to a fetus - and ignores the usual appeals to personhood and religiosity. The fetus, from conception, has the capacity for a valuable future - it takes an outside intervention to remove that capacity. For that reason, Marquis claims, abortion, for almost all cases (see below) and by our own standard for the unacceptable nature of murder, is itself unacceptable.
As an aside, though, abortion in the case of possible death during childbirth is left as an acceptable situation due to the fact that it now becomes a decision between the mother's future and the fetus' future.
Reply
