Philosophy argues abortion immorality

University of Kansas philosophy professor Donald Marquis presens the keynote address for the seventh annual Undergraduate Philosophy Conference on Friday in Peck Hall. Marquis' address was titled 'Five Perspectives on Abortion Ethics' and drew a crowd that filled the classroom.

Students and professors packed a Peck Hall classroom Friday to hear an acclaimed philosopher present his argument that abortion is immoral.

Philosophy honor society Phi Sigma Tau welcomed Don Marquis as their keynote speaker for their seventh annual Undergraduate Philosophy Conference. Philosophy students from across the country and Canada participated.

Phi Sigma Tau President Garner Perigo said the turnout for the keynote address was the largest in the history of the conference. Despite the popularity, Perigo said there were unusual obstacles to staging the event.

According to Perigo, the Student Government Finance Board showed more interest in the details of Phi Sigma Tau’s program than usual.

“I was pressed a little harder than other individuals soliciting funds at the same time and more than we have been in past years,” Perigo said.

Student Government Financial Officer Ryan Rosiak confirmed that there was some resistance to funding Marquis’ visit to campus.

“There were a couple of people on the board that didn’t agree with the topic. Some women didn’t like it,” Rosiak said. “Some of the members didn’t realize it was a philosophical debate, not a scientific debate.”

Despite the reservations of some Finance Board members, all members approved the funding request except Grace Figgers, who abstained from voting. The Student Senate approved the request without dissent.

Marquis found that reservations to discuss abortion are very common. His 1989 paper, “Why Abortion is Immoral,” has been republished 91 times, in several languages, yet Marquis is not often asked to speak on abortion.

“It is one of the most interesting topics to think really carefully and really hard about,” Marquis said. “Unfortunately, people only talk about it with people who agree with them.”

Marquis said the political discussions on abortion do not have much substance.

“People don’t discuss it very carefully. There are a lot of slogans. People don’t give reasons for their opinions. It’s a disaster on both sides,” Marquis said. “That is true of many issues, like health care and economic policy. These aren’t discussed in an intelligent way on either side.”

Sophomore child psychology major Aisha Dudley, of Peoria, grew up in a pro-choice environment and had not had much exposure to the other side of the argument. She came to the presentation to get a different perspective.

“Personally, I have been very conflicted about abortion,” Dudley said. “I wanted to hear someone else’s view.”

Marquis said his view is uncommon.

“I haven’t met many people who are atheists, don’t believe that all human life holds value and believe that abortion is immoral,” Marquis said.

Marquis clarified his views on the existence of a divine entity.

“I told someone earlier today that I am an atheist. I’m not quite an atheist,” Marquis said. “God may exist, for all I know, but we don’t know much about her properties if she does exist.”

The presentation began with what Marquis considers four invalid arguments commonly used to oppose abortion. Perhaps the most well-known of the rejected arguments is the innocent human life perspective, which is held by the Catholic Church.

Because he does not believe all innocent human life should be spared regardless of the circumstance, Marquis rejects the innocent human life argument. Marquis believes, for example, that euthanasia for those who are in severe and irrevocable pain is acceptable.

The future of value perspective, held by Marquis, states that what makes it wrong to kill all of us who have the right to life is that killing us deprives us of our futures of value.

 “I’m giving an account of how killing harms a human being, and I’m saying that it also applies to the fetus,” Marquis said. “There are people who hold views like mine but don’t apply it to fetuses. I always thought that was kind of an arbitrary view.”

To shorten someone’s life is to deprive the person of pleasures they would have otherwise had. According to Marquis, this is the reason people consider shortening someone’s life to be a misfortune.

“Fetuses have futures of value. The fetus I once was had a future very much like mine,” Marquis said. “Of course, there are exceptions to the wrongness of killing adults. Exceptions are carved out with a lot of care. When you take the fetus serious, morally, things get complicated.”

Visiting philosophy professor Elizabeth Victor attended the presentation because she was familiar with Marquis’ work, but had some things she wanted him to clarify. Victor said it is possible to be pro-choice and have a nuanced position.

“In a society where there aren’t proper support structures, we should seriously talk about what kinds of special obligations come with pregnancy and when they come on the scene,” Victor said.

Marquis argued that a pregnant woman is a parent and, therefore, has a special responsibility that goes above her obligation to anyone else.

“If you object to that, think of your attitude toward deadbeat dads,” Marquis said. “We actually do think that people who are biological parents, whether they wanted to be parents or not, have obligations to the children of whom they are parents.”

An audience member asked Marquis to address the possibility that a pregnancy could diminish the mother’s future of value or that the mother’s future of value is more important than that of the fetus. Marquis said the presence of a fetus might prove inconvenient to the mother, just as the presence of others in our lives can be inconvenient.

“If you and I are applying for medical school and there are only two openings left, it would clearly be better for me if you were not here,” Marquis said. “But we don’t think that is a valid reason to have you bumped off.”

According to Marquis, questions about pregnancy resulting from rape are a way for people who are pro-abortion rights to establish that, in certain cases abortion might not be wrong. Therefore, in general, abortions are permissible.

“That is not the way to think about it. I don’t think the fact that there are hard cases shows that I’m wrong,” Marquis said. “Just as the fact that there are hard cases regarding killing adults doesn’t show that it’s all right to kill adults.”

Marquis said his position on abortion is not popular, even amongst others who oppose abortion.

“There is a very substantial literature of people trying to point out why I’m wrong,” Marquis said. “I am thankful for it because it causes me to think through my position and ensure it holds up to the argument.”

(2) comments


what is there to argue? Abortion is immoral and politics has nothing to do with this. The problem is there are too many people not willing to take responsibility for their actions. The argument should be why the population that works and pays taxes are also paying for these abortions?


As stated, today's political environment does not really facilitate an open discussion on this issue. I have a degree in science, and I work at a place that is almost exclusively operated by scientists. Of course, the liberal environment here forces me to keep my opinions on the morality of abortion to myself. The argument is so dichotomous. Either you're for it or against it, and if you don't hold a particular groups views, there is obviously something wrong with you. I too agree with what the article referenced as "futures of value" or "life inertia (as i like to put it)", but I also subscribe to the "innocence of life" argument as well as the choice to euthanize an elder's suffering (opposed by the article). In the end, my biggest complaint is that there is not much calm well thought analytical discussion on the morality of this issue. If there were, I think the debates in the broader population would be a little less contentious.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.