philosophy

Abortion (part II): some philosophical arguments against abortion (review).   Three possible stances on abortion in the philosophical literature:

(1) The extreme conservative view (anti-abortionists, pro-life activists): Human personhood begins right at conception.  Abortion is, by definition, homicide.

(2) The extreme liberal view:

Human personhood begins immediately after birth or a bit later (Singer).  Abortions are permissible up until the point when personhood begins.     Singer: 28 days after birth Singer states, “‘the location of a being — inside or outside the  Womb — should not make that much difference to the wrongness of killing it.’” (3) The moderate view:

There is a morally relevant break in the biological process of development – between conception and birth.  A line can be drawn where life begins, and this line is after conception and before birth.  Abortion is o.k. if it occurs before this line.  

Arguments against abortion:

Last time we looked at various philosophical arguments in favor of abortion. This time we will look at arguments against.

The main argument against abortion in the philosophical literature is,

The “Standard Argument” 1.  The killing of a human being is prohibited. 2.  A fetus is a human being. 3.  The killing of a fetus is prohibited. There are some possible problems with the argument. For example, there might be cases in which it is not prohibited to kill someone…self-defense? But one could just alter the argument to the following to overcome that objection:

1.  The killing of an innocent human being is prohibited. 2.  A fetus is an innocent human being. 3.  The killing of a fetus is prohibited.

I have some more to say about the argument in a minute, but first, what do you think of this argument?

A problem with this argument is that it might be fallacious. A common fallacy is called “begging the question.” The phrase “begging the question” is sometimes used to mean something like, “raises the question.” But it does not mean that in logic. It means: to assume the very thing you are trying to prove. If you are trying to prove x, but your argument assumes that x is true, your argument will not be persuasive.

The standard argument might “beg the question.” Many pro-abortion people deny that a fetus is a human being.  They deny premise (2).  Whether or not a fetus is a human being is precisely what’s at issue. Most agree that if a fetus is a human being, abortion would be wrong. So abortion defenders will not be convinced by this argument, and it assumes exactly what is it issue in the debate. We are basically back where we started.  

A lot people think we need to figure out where human personhood begins to resolve this issue.  At what point in the development of a fetus can you say, “Aha, there’s a person there now?” Some (e.g., the Catholic church at one time) have pointed to the first movement of the fetus as the point where the “breathing of life” into the human body occurs.   But this is problematic.   The real first movement of the fetus is somewhere between the 6th and 9th week.  At this point, the fetus is still very different from a human being some will argue.   Plus, some people cannot move?  Does this mean they aren’t people?   It doesn’t seem like movement is all that relevant in deciding if something is a person.   So again, where do you draw the line? Of course, the extreme conservative view draws it at conception.  

And sometimes the difficulty of figuring out where the line should be drawn is used to formulate an argument against abortion.   Argument Two:

1. The biological development of the fetus to become a human being is an incremental process that leaves no room for a morally significant break.  Any break would be arbitrary, because you could always pick a different place to draw the line.

1. So, to be safe, we should draw the line at conception.  That way, we don’t have to make an arbitrary choice.

1. But then, abortion should not be allowed.  

What do you think of this argument?

This argument can be challenged: e.g., red to orange. Acorn to oak.  

Here’s a third argument against abortion.   Some say that the fetus will potentially develop to become a human being, so a fetus has the same rights as a human being.  (1) A fetus is a potential human being. (2) Human beings have the right to life. (3) So a fetus has the potential to the right to life. (4) So a fetus has the right to life.   What do we think of this argument?

This is problematic though.   Joel Feinberg: “Potentiality, Development, and Rights” Actual rights cannot be derived from potential rights.   If person X is President of the USA and thus is Commander in Chief of the army, then person X had the potential ability to become the President of the USA and Commander in Chief of the army in the years before his election. 

But, it does not follow that: The person X has the authority to command the army as potential President of the USA. The moral here: just because something has the potential to have rights, it might not have them yet.  Just because a fetus has the potential to have the right to live, it might not have it at a given stage of development.   

Here is a fourth argument I’ve heard thrown around before: (1) You never know when someone will be extraordinary (the person who will cure cancer etc). (2) These sorts of people are too valuable to lose to abortion. (3) So we should stop abortion.

What do we think of this?

Argument Five:

John Noonan. “An Almost Absolute Value in History” (1970).

"The commandment could be put in humanistic as well as theological terms: do not injure your fellow man without reasons. In these terms, once the humanity of the fetus is perceived, abortion is never right except in self-defense" (Noonan)

1. It is morally wrong to injure another person unless it is done to save a life. 2. A fetus is a person. 3. Therefore, it is morally wrong to injure a fetus unless it is done to save a life. 4. If it is morally wrong to injure a fetus unless it is done to save a life, then abortion is morally wrong unless it is required to save the life of the mother. 5. Therefore, abortion is morally wrong unless it is required to save the life of the mother.

What about this argument?