- Feb 5, 2002
- 187,616
- 69,647
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Don Marquis was an atheist philosopher best known for his argument against abortion, which makes absolutely no appeal to religion, the soul, or God. So, how does Marquis reason to his conclusion?
He begins with common ground among those who are pro-choice and those who are pro-life. If someone kills you or me right now, that person would do something wrong. What makes it wrong to kill you or me?
If you or I are killed today, it doesn’t take away the good things we enjoyed yesterday: the friendships we shared, the knowledge we learned, and the beauty we enjoyed. But if you or I are killed today, we are deprived of the friendships we could have enjoyed, the knowledge we could have gained, and the beauty we could have experienced in the future. So, killing you or me is wrong because it deprives us of the chance to enjoy goods in the future. Put another way, one reason killing is wrong is because it deprives an individual of a future-like-ours.
So too, if a newborn baby is killed, he is deprived of the friendships he would have formed, the knowledge he would have learned, the beauty he would have experienced. He won’t joke with friends, he won’t master penalty kicks in soccer, and he won’t become a dad. Infanticide is wrong because it deprives an individual of his chance for a valuable future.
But the same thing is true of the human being deprived of life prior to birth. She won’t graduate from kindergarten, she won’t have her first kiss, and she won’t be able to learn jiu jitsu. Abortion is wrong because it deprives an individual of her chance for a future-like-ours.
One objection raised to Marquis’s argument is that his argument shows not only that infanticide and abortion are wrong but also that contraception is wrong. This conclusion may not trouble those who think contraception is wrong, but it would trouble people in favor of contraception. So, if you think contraception is sometimes permissible, then you should also reject Marquis’s future-like-ours argument.
Continued below.
www.wordonfire.org
He begins with common ground among those who are pro-choice and those who are pro-life. If someone kills you or me right now, that person would do something wrong. What makes it wrong to kill you or me?
If you or I are killed today, it doesn’t take away the good things we enjoyed yesterday: the friendships we shared, the knowledge we learned, and the beauty we enjoyed. But if you or I are killed today, we are deprived of the friendships we could have enjoyed, the knowledge we could have gained, and the beauty we could have experienced in the future. So, killing you or me is wrong because it deprives us of the chance to enjoy goods in the future. Put another way, one reason killing is wrong is because it deprives an individual of a future-like-ours.
So too, if a newborn baby is killed, he is deprived of the friendships he would have formed, the knowledge he would have learned, the beauty he would have experienced. He won’t joke with friends, he won’t master penalty kicks in soccer, and he won’t become a dad. Infanticide is wrong because it deprives an individual of his chance for a valuable future.
But the same thing is true of the human being deprived of life prior to birth. She won’t graduate from kindergarten, she won’t have her first kiss, and she won’t be able to learn jiu jitsu. Abortion is wrong because it deprives an individual of her chance for a future-like-ours.
One objection raised to Marquis’s argument is that his argument shows not only that infanticide and abortion are wrong but also that contraception is wrong. This conclusion may not trouble those who think contraception is wrong, but it would trouble people in favor of contraception. So, if you think contraception is sometimes permissible, then you should also reject Marquis’s future-like-ours argument.
Continued below.
An Atheist’s Argument Against Abortion - Word on Fire
Don Marquis was an atheist philosopher who made an argument against abortion with no appeal to religion, the soul, or God. How does he do so?
www.wordonfire.org
