Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 02/10/2026 9:23:51 AM PST by Morgana
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.
The possibility that we may have a bad future does not change the fact that killing you or me now would be wrong.
But Marquis points out that the future-like-ours argument does not imply that contraception is impermissible. What is contraception? It is any action before, during, or after a sexual act intended to render the sexual act non-procreative. As the name suggests, contra-ception acts against conception. But until a human being is conceived, there is no new individual that exists. If there is no new individual that exists, then there is no individual deprived of a future-like-ours. The premise of Marquis’s argument is that it is wrong to deprive an individual of a future-like-ours; he does not hold that failing to bring an individual into existence is wrong. We have no obligation to bring as many human individuals into existence as we can. Thus, there is no inconsistency in holding both that contraception is permissible and that it is wrong to deprive an individual of a chance for a future-like-ours. In other words, even if you hold that contraception is permissible, that is no grounds for rejecting the future-like-ours argument against abortion.
Another objection to the future-like-ours argument is that maybe the individual in question will have a bad future. Indeed, it could turn out that the newborn or the human being in utero will have a very bad future indeed. They may end up wandering the streets homeless, addicted, and friendless.
But the same thing is true for you and me. What will happen to us in ten years’ time? Can anyone know with certainty that we won’t be wandering the streets homeless, addicted, and friendless? But the possibility that we may have a bad future does not change the fact that killing you or me now would be wrong.
Moreover, isn’t it wrong to kill the homeless, the addicted, and the friendless? Yes, if we kill them today, we would prevent their suffering tomorrow, but it is still wrong to kill them. If we have compassion for those who suffer, we should try to end their suffering, not destroy those who suffer.
So, it is wrong to deprive an individual of a chance for a valuable future. And if it is wrong to kill you or me because killing us deprives us of our chance for a valuable future, so too it is wrong to kill an infant or a human being in utero. In fact, we have no certain knowledge of their future and no certain knowledge of our own future. For, as Yogi Berra is said to have quipped, “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Pray for those in the Secular Pro Life movement that they come to know God.
No. It doesn't.
Unless you regard chastity and celibacy as wrong.
Which most people would regard as silly.
It is one thing to not make life, which you do every time you do not screw anything you can get to hold still.
It is quite another to end a life that is already begun.
The atheistic "future like ours" argument, without God, fails on so many levels
Why does anyone deserve a "future like mine?" Are they saying that we all have a an inherent right to equal opportunity at life? Who ultimately deems that to be true? Who gives inherent rights? Without God, I can simply deny that any "rights" at all exist.
Moreover, a God-less "right" simply doesn't exist. As abortion is in practice, in neo-marxist terms, a "power construct," I have more power than you, little fetus, so my rights to pleasure, money, convenience, override your imagined rights.
I appreciate the effort, but there is no atheistic argument against abortion that can not ultimately involved God
It’s called Natural Law—that which we can’t not know. Killing the most innocent child for reason of mere expediency is wrong and everyone knows it—believer and atheist alike. Every pro-abortion advocate knows it is wrong, just as surely as the most ardent pro-lifer. All the rest is self-deception.
“It’s called Natural Law—that which we can’t not know. Killing the most innocent child for reason of mere expediency is wrong and everyone knows it—believer and atheist alike. Every pro-abortion advocate knows it is wrong, just as surely as the most ardent pro-lifer. All the rest is self-deception.”
Absolutely perfect!
Thank you. 🙏
I’m curious.
Transcendentalist?
“they don’t know God but they can still know right from wrong and admit it.”
Yes. Interesting.
The applicable accepted law/ethics is that killing an innocent human is a no-no.
This the whole argument about abortion revolves around at what point does something become a human being.
Agree on that, and everything else is just noise.
And science provides us with an answer.
When sperm meets egg and a zygote is formed, human being.
At that point they have everything that makes them a unique human. All they need to continue to live is nourishment and a safe environment. Which is something we all need.
There is no argument about it. No controversy.
Unless you want to argue that because of location or certain physical characteristics that they are "not human". Which is basically what people have been using as justification for murder since time began.
They don't look like us, talk like us, butter their bread like us, must not be humans. Let's kill them!
““they don’t know God but they can still know right from wrong and admit it.”
Yes. Interesting.”
It’s just simple self preserving logic, you don’t need a God to tell you about the golden rule.
Doing unto other as you would they do unto you, is not an altruistic rule, it’s a very self serving rule and it comes out of experience.
Human nature is such that 99+% of the time, if you treat other people nice, chances are very good that they’ll be nice to you. The opposite is also true. So it pays to not be an ahole. And you don’t need to be religious to know that.
In other words, as ye sow so shall ye reap.
And there’s also karma.
Amazing, they don't know God but they can still know right from wrong and admit it. Pray for those in the Secular Pro Life movement that they come to know God.“Morality” presumes a coherent, comprehensive transcendent definitive standard on what is moral, and since atheists - and many deists - have none that they can be held to, and even interpret, then essentially they can all consider themselves to be moral.
The Bible affirms, (Romans 2:14.15) man is provided with a basic innate sense of morality, which, to varying degrees, is reflected in cultures, thus atheists, etc. may largely live relatively moral laws, as sinners.
However, as the basic moral sense can be rejected and defiled, lacks depth, then atheists can radically fundamentally disagree with each others, as can religions with each others.
Western atheists are overwhelming liberal, (from what little stats we have) even if irrationally so, affirming fornication and homosexual relations despite their extensive historical negative effects, including monetary costs, as well as abortion being legal in all or most cases, though a small percentage oppose both.
And while Western atheists will profess support for freedom of speech, atheists in Russia and communist countries can be expected to oppose this (which is to be expected of atheists) and be less supportive of homosexual relations.
What is contraception? It is any action before, during, or after a sexual act intended to render the sexual act non-procreative. As the name suggests, contra-ception acts against conception.
Aside from the possibility of contraception causing abortion, that is wrong in principle. No time to elaborate now.
I say use DNA to prove that human life begins at fertilization.
Everybody’s hearts are inscribed with God’s laws.
To value that life as less than a person due to location (safely "quarantined" in the mother's womb) and or upon degree of functionality, and thus terminate its life, treating this human life as a tumor to be dispensed with - and in most all cases is due to reasons of convenience* - is to value this life less than even the nest of a migratory bird (illegal to even disturb), let alone break eggs or otherwise kill a migratory bird.
And note that this procreative act is almost always consensual, and with *approx. % of abortions being due to rape, and about 2% necessary to save the life of the mother (and not just a physician's judgment that the child would/could have some adverse effects on the woman's health), and with "reasons of convenience" being in reference to avoiding sacrifices of time, money, education, etc., meaning sacrifices such as parents in the past made, and were overall rewarded by it.
Now, more money is spent on pets than ever before, and which outnumber children themselves.
The late Nat Hentoff was a far left atheist, but was pro-life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.