Abortion is wrong.

What makes killing a young adult wrong is not simply the biological end of their life, but the theft of every experience they were supposed to have—every friendship, every sunset, and every accomplishment. This perspective, known as the **Deprivation Argument**, suggests that abortion is wrong because it deprives a fetus of a "future like ours." ### The Argument from Potential Many people assume the debate over abortion is purely religious, but some of the most influential arguments against it are secular and philosophical. Don Marquis, a professor of philosophy, famously argued in his 1989 paper, ["Why Abortion is Immoral,"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_future_like_ours) that abortion is wrong for the same reason that killing any adult human is wrong: it denies the victim a future of value. > "The loss of one's life is one of the greatest losses one can suffer. The loss of one's life deprives one of all the experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted one's future. Therefore, killing is wrong, primarily because the killing inflicts (one of) the greatest possible losses on the victim." By focusing on the **future like ours** (FLO), Marquis shifts the focus away from whether a fetus is currently a "person" with thoughts and feelings, and toward what the fetus will inevitably become if left to develop. ### Biological Continuity and Moral Status Another pillar of this position is the concept of **moral status**—the property of being a being that matters for its own sake. Thinkers like [John T. Noonan Jr.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Noonan_Jr.), a legal scholar and judge, argued that at the moment of conception, a unique genetic code is established. To Noonan, this isn't just a biological milestone; it is the point where a being acquires the full potential of a human life. In his essay, "An Almost Absolute Value in History," Noonan points out that once the genetic information is present, the probability of that entity becoming a thinking, feeling human being jumps from a "one in millions" chance (the odds of a specific sperm meeting a specific egg) to a near-certainty. He suggests that drawing a line at any other stage—like birth or the ability to feel pain—is arbitrary because the essential "human-ness" is already there. ### Beyond the Physical If we accept that a fetus has a future of value, the act of abortion becomes a question of **justice**. If justice requires us to protect those who cannot protect themselves, then the most vulnerable stage of human life—the stage with the most "future" to lose—requires the strongest protection. *** **Deepen Your Exploration:** 1. If we base a being's right to life on its "future like ours," how does that affect our moral obligations to other animals or even advanced artificial intelligence? 2. At what point does a "biological human" become a "person" with legal rights, and why do different cultures and philosophers choose different moments for this transition? 3. How does the "argument from potential" handle cases where the future of the fetus is guaranteed to be one of extreme suffering or limited consciousness?