Unit Three: Abortion
Needless to say, abortion is still a very contentious issue and may remain so for the foreseeable future. One reason for the relevance today is the possibility that the Supreme Court may revisit the issue and some speculate may even overturn Roe v. Wade. What would happen if this landmark decision were overturned? Surprisingly enough some say not much really. The overturn of this case would simply mean that states would have the right to regulate abortion (which they already have) to include severely restricting it or even abolishing it entirely. Would any state do this? It seems unlikely though it may be the case that many states would introduce more restrictions. Whatever the outcome, it seems prudent to have a familiarity with the ruling that caused the controversy in the first place and so we begin with the case itself.
The issue of abortion seems to force people to stake out absolute positions and then defend them without compromise. But it seems that there are many things that both sides would agree with and it's often the case that conflicts arise because we forget this common ground. Many pro-choice advocates begin the conversation by saying that "a woman has the right to choose what happens to her body." Not many people will disagree with this including many pro-life advocates. The question is not whether a woman has the right to her body but whether the fetus should be regarded as part of her body or separate from it. Pro-life advocates usually begin the conversation by saying that "every human being has a right to life." Again, not many will disagree with this including many pro-choice advocates. The question is not whether human beings have a fundamental right to life but whether this fundamental human right can be extended to the fetus. As difficult as it might be, we should use this opportunity to examine some of the philosophical arguments both for and against abortion. No, looking at these arguments won't allow us to settle the issue once and for all. But, examining the reasoning behind the various positions on abortion might allow us to understand the elements of the debate as well as the positions of each side. Please note, as you read the articles in this section that many of them contain fairly intricate arguments and you will need to read them closely to get the points. I have provided a summary of the important points for the articles but a close reading will be necessary to fully understand these points.
Marquis Article
What makes killing adults wrong is that they are deprived of their future.
Implications of this theory:
Warren Article
How much like a person does a fetus need to be to have a right to life?
Thomson Article
1. While it might be the case that a third party has no way to decide which life should be preserved, it does not follow that the woman has no right to decide or abort in cases where her life is at risk.
2. The fact that the mother owns her own body does provide a way for third parties to decide in cases where the woman's life is at risk.
3. "a right to life does not guarantee having either a right to be given the use of or the right to be allowed continued use of another person's body."
4. "There are some cases in which the unborn person has a right to the use of its mother's body and therefore some cases in which abortion is unjust killing.
5. From the fact that you ought to do something it does not follow that someone has a right for you to do that.
Applied to abortion this means that even in cases where you ought to carry the fetus to term it does not imply that the fetus has a right to life.
6. We are not morally required (nor legally required) to be "good Samaritans."
7. If parents "have taken all reasonable precautions against having a child, they do not simply by virtue of their biological relationship to the child who comes into existence have a special responsibility to it."
8. "…I do argue that abortion is not impermissible, I do not argue that it is always permissible…"
9. "…I am arguing for the permissibility of abortion in some cases, I am not arguing for the right to secure the death of the unborn child."
Sumner Article
Established views: both based on a "uniform account of the moral status of the fetus
Conservative: all abortions are wrong
Liberal: all abortions are permissible
Moderate view: based on a differential account of the moral status of the fetus
Differential account of the moral status of the fetus
requirements
The issue of abortion seems to force people to stake out absolute positions and then defend them without compromise. But it seems that there are many things that both sides would agree with and it's often the case that conflicts arise because we forget this common ground. Many pro-choice advocates begin the conversation by saying that "a woman has the right to choose what happens to her body." Not many people will disagree with this including many pro-life advocates. The question is not whether a woman has the right to her body but whether the fetus should be regarded as part of her body or separate from it. Pro-life advocates usually begin the conversation by saying that "every human being has a right to life." Again, not many will disagree with this including many pro-choice advocates. The question is not whether human beings have a fundamental right to life but whether this fundamental human right can be extended to the fetus. As difficult as it might be, we should use this opportunity to examine some of the philosophical arguments both for and against abortion. No, looking at these arguments won't allow us to settle the issue once and for all. But, examining the reasoning behind the various positions on abortion might allow us to understand the elements of the debate as well as the positions of each side. Please note, as you read the articles in this section that many of them contain fairly intricate arguments and you will need to read them closely to get the points. I have provided a summary of the important points for the articles but a close reading will be necessary to fully understand these points.
Marquis Article
What makes killing adults wrong is that they are deprived of their future.
Implications of this theory:
- It will be wrong to kill any being who has such a future.
- It may be wrong to kill other animals because of the value of their future.
- This theory does not entail that active euthanasia is wrong.
- It is wrong to kill children and infants.
- Abortion is not wrong because it entails killing a potential person.
- Abortion is wrong because it entails depriving someone of a future like ours.
- This argument does not show that abortion is wrong in all cases.
- There may be some abortions which are justified "only if the loss consequent on failing to abort would be at least as great."
Warren Article
- "…it is not possible to produce a satisfactory defense of a woman's right to obtain an abortion without showing that a fetus is not a human being, in the morally relevant sense of that term..."
- there is a distinction between the genetic and moral sense of the term "human being."
- Being human in the genetic sense is not sufficient to be considered human in the moral sense.
- In order to be considered a member of the moral community one must fit the criteria of personhood.
- Consciousness and in particular the capacity to feel pain;
- Reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems);
- Self-motivated activity (activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control)
- The capacity to communicate
- The presence of self-concepts and self-awareness
How much like a person does a fetus need to be to have a right to life?
- The fetus can only ever be considered somewhat like a person because they do not possess all of the criteria
- The fetus may have a prima facie right to life as a potential person but this right cannot outweigh the right of an actual person (the woman).
Thomson Article
- Though she does not think the fetus is a human being from the moment of conception, for the purposes of her argument she assumes that it is.
- Maintaining that the fetus is a person does not necessarily entail that abortion is immoral and impermissible.
- The violinist analogy is meant to show that a person's right to life does not override another person's right to decide what to do with their body.
- The violinist analogy only applies to cases which are regarded as exceptions (involuntary cases such as rape)
- If a person has a right to life, this cannot be overridden just because the person is the result of rape.
1. While it might be the case that a third party has no way to decide which life should be preserved, it does not follow that the woman has no right to decide or abort in cases where her life is at risk.
2. The fact that the mother owns her own body does provide a way for third parties to decide in cases where the woman's life is at risk.
3. "a right to life does not guarantee having either a right to be given the use of or the right to be allowed continued use of another person's body."
4. "There are some cases in which the unborn person has a right to the use of its mother's body and therefore some cases in which abortion is unjust killing.
5. From the fact that you ought to do something it does not follow that someone has a right for you to do that.
Applied to abortion this means that even in cases where you ought to carry the fetus to term it does not imply that the fetus has a right to life.
6. We are not morally required (nor legally required) to be "good Samaritans."
7. If parents "have taken all reasonable precautions against having a child, they do not simply by virtue of their biological relationship to the child who comes into existence have a special responsibility to it."
8. "…I do argue that abortion is not impermissible, I do not argue that it is always permissible…"
9. "…I am arguing for the permissibility of abortion in some cases, I am not arguing for the right to secure the death of the unborn child."
Sumner Article
Established views: both based on a "uniform account of the moral status of the fetus
Conservative: all abortions are wrong
Liberal: all abortions are permissible
Moderate view: based on a differential account of the moral status of the fetus
Differential account of the moral status of the fetus
requirements
- "must explain the moral relevance of the gestational age of the fetus at the time of abortion"
- "must correlate moral status with level of fetal development"
- "must explain the moral relevance, at least at some stage of pregnancy, of the reason for which an abortion is performed"
- "must preserve the distinction between the moral innocuousness of contraception and the moral seriousness of infanticide"
- The moderate view of abortion is based on the criteria of sentience.
- "A fetus acquires moral standing when it acquires sentience."
- Sentience entails the capacity to feel pleasure and pain.
- This occurs somewhere during the second trimester of fetal development.
- "a time limit that separates early from late abortions"
- A permissive policy for early abortions
- A policy for late abortions that incorporates both therapeutic and eugenic grounds