Spontaneous abortion and unexpected death: a critical discussion of Marquis on abortion

Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (2):89-93 (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In his classic paper, ‘Why abortion is immoral’, Don Marquis argues that what makes killing an adult seriously immoral is that it deprives the victim of the valuable future he/she would have otherwise had. Moreover, Marquis contends, because abortion deprives a fetus of the very same thing, aborting a fetus is just as seriously wrong as killing an adult. Marquis’ argument has received a great deal of critical attention in the two decades since its publication. Nonetheless, there is a potential challenge to it that seems to have gone unnoticed. A significant percentage of fetuses are lost to spontaneous abortion. Once we bring this fact to our attention, it becomes less clear whether Marquis can use his account of the wrongness of killing to show that abortion is the moral equivalent of murder. In this paper, I explore the relevance of the rate of spontaneous abortion to Marquis’ classic anti-abortion argument. I introduce a case I call Unexpected Death in which someone is about to commit murder, but, just as the would-be murderer is about to strike, his would-be victim dies unexpectedly. I then ask: what does Marquis’ account of killing imply about the moral status of what the would-be murderer was about to do? I consider four responses Marquis could give to this question, and I examine what implications these responses have for Marquis’ strategy of using his account of the wrongness of killing an adult to show that abortion is in the same moral category

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,853

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Abortion, competing entitlements, and parental responsibility.Alex Rajczi - 2009 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 26 (4):379-395.
Chemical Abortion in Australia.Marcia Riordan - 2009 - Chisholm Health Ethics Bulletin 15 (2):6.
A critique of “the best secular argument against abortion”.C. Strong - 2008 - Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (10):727-731.
Abortion, society, and the law.David F. Walbert - 1973 - Cleveland [Ohio]: Press of Case Western Reserve University. Edited by J. Douglas Butler.
Abortion, Christianity, and Consistency.Richard Schoenig - 1998 - Philosophy in the Contemporary World 5 (1):32-37.
Reply to Di Nucci: why the counterexamples succeed.C. Strong - 2009 - Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (5):326-327.

Analytics

Added to PP
2012-10-05

Downloads
131 (#139,745)

6 months
18 (#141,390)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Mary Coleman
Illinois Wesleyan University

Citations of this work

Fine-Tuning the Impairment Argument.Bruce Blackshaw & Perry Hendricks - 2021 - Journal of Medical Ethics 47 (9):641-642.
Killing and Impairing Fetuses.Prabhpal Singh - 2022 - The New Bioethics 28 (2):127-138.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Why abortion is immoral.Don Marquis - 1989 - Journal of Philosophy 86 (4):183-202.

Add more references