Abortion Ethical Views

Front 1

What is the "Liberal" view on Abortion?

Back 1

abortion is always ethically acceptable at any point of fetal development and for any of the standard reasons

Front 2

What is the "Conservative" view on Abortion?

Back 2

Abortion is never ethically acceptable, or at most it is acceptable only when necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman.

Front 3

What is the "Moderate" view on Abortion?

Back 3

Abortion is ethically acceptable up to a certain point of fetal development and/or holding that some reasons provide a sufficient justification for abortion, whereas others do not.

Front 4

Conservatives claim what about the fetus?

Back 4

- has full moral status

Front 5

Liberals claim what about the fetus?

Back 5

- has no significant moral status

Front 6

Moderates claim what about the fetus?

Back 6

- has a subsidiary or "partial" moral status

Front 7

Liberals argue that since the fetus has no significant moral status, that ________

Back 7

the fetus has no more right to life than a piece of tissue, such as an appendix, and an abortion is no more morally objectionable than an appendectomy.

Front 8

Conservatives argue that since the fetus has full moral status, that_____-

Back 8

its right to life must be respected with the upmost seriousness, and an abortion, except perhaps to save the life of a pregnant woman, is as morally objectionable as any other murder.

Front 9

When does conception take place?

Back 9

when a male germ cell (the spermatozoon) combines with a female germ cell (the ovum) resulting in a single cell (the single-cell zygote), whcih embodies the full genetic code, 23 pairs of chromosomes

Front 10

Human implies_______

Nonhuman implies _______

Back 10

full moral status

no significant moral status

Front 11

What view does Mary Anne Warren have on abortion?

Back 11

Liberal view
- argues that the fetus is not a person.
- also contends that the fetus bears so little resemblance to a person that it cannot be said to have a significant right to life.
- even newborn baby is not a person - prompts consideration to moral justifiability of infanticide

Front 12

What is the conservative "presumption argument?"

Back 12

To be willing to kill what for all we know could be a person is to be willing to kill it if it is a person. Since we cannot absolutely settle if it is a person except by a metaphysical postulate, for all practical purposes we must hold that to be willing to kill the embryo is to be willing to kill a person.

Front 13

What is Don Marquis' view on abortion?

Back 13

Very conservative view - but he does not argue for what is commonly referred to as "the" conservative view on abortion.
- bases his opposition to abortion on a distinctive theory about the wrongness of killing.
- claims there is a strong moral presumption against abortion and although he clearly believes that the vast majority of abortions are seriously immoral, he is not committed to the standard conservative contention that the only possible exception is the case in which it is necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman.

Front 14

What is the standard conservative view, such as John Paul II?

Back 14

The standard conservative is committed to a "sanctity-of-life" viewpoint, according to which the lives of all biologically human beings (assuming their moral innocence) are considered immune from attack.

Front 15

What view does the Roman Catholic church have on abortion?

Back 15

Conservative view

Front 16

Why is it Seriously Immoral to Kill Innocent Adult Human Beings?

Back 16

Possible answers:
- Killing brutalizes the one who kills.
- The great loss to others

Marquis’ answer:
“The loss of one’s life is one of the greatest losses one can suffer” (SE, p. 22).

Front 17

Marquis’ Position

Back 17

[A]bortion is, except possibly in rare cases, seriously immoral,…it is in the same moral category as killing an innocent adult human being” (SE, p. 22).

Front 18

Warren's arguments

Back 18

- The case of the space explorer
- A more realistic example: cloning

Is there a problem with these arguments?

Front 19

Two Alternative Arguments
to Warren's argumenta

Back 19

- It is not the case that potential x’s generally have the same rights as actual x’s:
- Potential lawyers (e.g., law students) don’t have the same rights as lawyers.
- Potential U.S. Presidents (e.g., Barack Obama or John McCain) do not have the same rights as actual Presidents.
- The rat who is a potential person

Front 20

Human Fetuses as Potential Persons

Back 20

- It may be controversial to claim that human fetuses are persons.
- However, it is not controversial to claim that they are potential persons—i.e., they will develop into persons if they are not aborted and develop normally to adulthood.
- Actual persons have a right to life, but what about potential persons?
Warren’s answer: No

Front 21

The Primary Question
Under what conditions, if any, is abortion ethically permissible?

Back 21

Three Answers
The (extreme) conservative answer
The (extreme) liberal answer
The moderate answer

Front 22

The (Extreme) Conservative Answer

Back 22

The most extreme answer:
Never: under no conditions

Less extreme answers:
- To prevent the death of the pregnant woman
- Double effect: only if the death of the fetus is not intended and is not a means to saving the pregnant woman’s life
- Marquis’s answer

Front 23

The (Extreme) Liberal Answer

Back 23

- Whenever a pregnant woman chooses to have an abortion
- It is never morally wrong for a woman to have an abortion
- Warren’s answer

Front 24

The Moderate Answer

Back 24

- Abortion is morally permissible under some conditions and morally wrong under other conditions

Thomson’s answer
- Whether or not abortion is ethically permissible depends on:
- The stage of fetal development (between conception and birth)
- The reasons for wanting an abortion

Front 25

Some Stages in Fetal Development

Back 25

- Implantation
- Human-like appearance (~ 4 – 5 weeks)
- Brain activity (~ 6 – 8 weeks)
- Quickening (~ 16 – 18 weeks)
- Viability (~ 22 – 26 weeks)

Front 26

Reasons for Having an Abortion?
Points of Agreement Between Extreme Conservatives and Liberals

Back 26

- The stage of fetal development is ethically irrelevant.
- Conservatives: Wrong from conception
- Liberals: Permissible until birth
- The reasons for having an abortion are ethically irrelevant.
- Extreme Conservatives: No reasons are acceptable.
- Extreme Liberals: Any reason is acceptable.

Front 27

Ethics vs. Public Policy

Back 27

Positions regarding the ethics of abortion:
- Conservative
- Liberal
- Moderate

Positions regarding public policy with respect to abortion—i.e., whether abortion should be prohibited :
- Pro-life: for legal restrictions
- Pro-choice: anti legal restrictions

Front 28

Ethics vs. Public Policy--Continued

Back 28

- There is a connection between the liberal position on the ethics of abortion and a pro-choice public policy.
- Can a person consistently accept the conservative position on the ethics of abortion and reject a pro-life public policy?

Front 29

A Defense of the Extreme Conservative View

Back 29

Pope John Paul II: “The Unspeakable Crime of Abortion”

Front 30

The Moral Principle Cited by Pope John Paul II

Back 30

The Pope claims:
“[P]rocured abortion is the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being…” (SE, p. 11)

What moral principle is needed to support the conclusion that abortion is morally wrong?

Front 31

Assessment of the Moral Principle

Back 31

- Is the moral principle acceptable?
- Are there are justified exceptions?

Front 32

A Revised Moral Principle

Back 32

How can the moral principle be revised to accommodate justified exceptions?

Front 33

An Argument Against Abortion

Back 33

- The deliberate and direct killing of innocent human beings who do not want to die is morally wrong.
- Human fetuses are innocent human beings who do not want to die.
- Abortion involves the deliberate and direct killing of human fetuses.

Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.

Front 34

Are Human Fetuses Human Beings?

Back 34

To answer this question, it is necessary to define “human being.”

Warren identifies two senses of “human being:”
- A genetic sense: a member of the species homo sapiens
- A moral sense: an organism with full moral standing and rights (a person)

Front 35

Are Human Fetuses Human Beings?--Continued

Back 35

Human fetuses clearly are human beings in a genetic sense. But are they persons? Do they have full moral standing and a right to life?

When does a developing human organism acquire full moral standing and a right to life?
- The Pope’s answer: at conception
- Warren’s answer: not before birth

Front 36

Extreme Conservative Argument

Back 36

- based on a generally acceptable ethical principle.
- based on the assumption that human fetuses are persons, i.e., have full moral standing and a right to life, from the moment of conception.

In the selection in Social Ethics, Pope John Paul II provides no justification of this crucial assumption.

Front 37

An Extreme Liberal Defense of Abortion

Back 37

Mary Anne Warren
The Concept of Personhood

A key concept insofar as Warren claims that persons and only persons have full moral standing and a right to life
According to Warren:
- Species membership is not a necessary condition of personhood.
- Species membership is not a sufficient condition of personhood.

Front 38

Warren’s Five Criteria of Personhood

Back 38

- Consciousness
- Reasoning: a developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems
- Self-motivated activity: activity that is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control
- The capacity to communicate messages of an indefinite variety of types, not just with an indefinite number of possible contents, but on indefinitely many possible topics (i.e., language)
- Self-concepts and self-awareness, either individual or racial, or both

Front 39

Warren’s Conclusion

Back 39

“...[A human] fetus, even a fully developed one, is considerably less personlike than is the average mature mammal, indeed the average fish...[I]f the right to life of a [human] fetus is to be based upon its resemblance to a person, then it cannot be said to have any more right to life than, let us say, a newborn guppy...and...a right of that magnitude could never override a woman’s right to obtain an abortion, at any stage of her pregnancy” (SE, p. 18).

Front 40

Why is the Loss of One’s Life Such a Great Loss?

Back 40

It is not a loss we experience, so how can it be a loss?

Marquis’ answer:
“The loss of one’s life deprives one of all the experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted one’s future” (SE, p. 22).

Front 41

What About Human Fetuses?

Back 41

Marquis claims that they have futures similar to ours:
“The future of a standard fetus includes a set of experiences, projects, activities, and such which are identical with the futures of adult human beings…” (SE, p, 24).

Therefore, killing human fetuses is no less seriously immoral than killing us.

Front 42

Why is Marquis’ Argument Distinctive?

Back 42

- He does not rely on the assumption that human fetuses are persons.
- He does not rely on the assumption that human fetuses are potential persons.

Front 43

Are There Any Problems with Marquis’ Argument?

Back 43

Marquis considers one possible objection:
- His argument has the absurd implication that the use of contraception is just as seriously immoral as killing an innocent adult human.

Marquis’ response:
- Prior to conception, there is no living organism that is the subject of harm.
- Prior to conception, “there is no nonarbitrarily identifiable subject of the loss…” (SE, p. 26).

Front 44

Another Objection

Back 44

- A human fetus does not have a “present” as an identifiable subject of experiences.
- Therefore, a human fetus cannot have a future as the same identifiable subject of experiences.
- My future experiences are mine insofar as they are the experiences of the same subject (me).
- If I will irreversibly lose all my memories after surgery to remove a brain tumor, post surgery experiences will not be my future experiences.
- Thus, if I were to die during surgery, it could not be said that death resulted in the loss of my future experiences.

A similar analysis applies to human fetuses—but in reverse:
- The link between me now and me as a fetus is similar to the link between me now and me after surgery.
- It is a physical link, but not one based on subjective or psychological continuity.

Front 45

CONCLUSION

Back 45

Marquis does not appear to present a decisive argument in support of the (extreme) conservative position.

Front 46

A Defense of a Moderate Position

Back 46

Judith Jarvis Thomson

Front 47

Judith Jarvis Thomson

Back 47

Conservatives focus on the following question: Do human fetuses have full moral standing and a right to life?

Thomson argues that even if the answer to this question is “yes,” it still does not follow that abortion is morally wrong.
- Why not? Because fetuses are in pregnant women’s bodies, and it is necessary to consider the rights of pregnant women, in particular the right to control what happens in and to their bodies.

Front 48

The key question according to Thomson is:

Back 48

Assuming a human fetus has a right to life, does that right entitle it to use the woman’s body?

For the sake of argument, Thomson grants the assumption that human fetuses have full moral standing and a right to life.

Front 49

Can any right override an innocent person’s right to life?

Back 49

 Thomson’s response: This is a misleading description of the situation.

A fetus’s right to life is not “outweighed” by a pregnant woman’s rights.

Instead, the fetus’s right to life does not entitle it to the continued use of the woman’s body.

Front 50

The Story of the Violinist

Back 50

Thomson uses the story of a violinist with a fatal kidney disease to support the conclusion that even if human fetuses have full moral standing and a right to life, they do not have a right to continue using a pregnant woman’s body without her permission.

This is an argument by analogy.

Front 51

Assessing an Argument by Analogy

Back 51

Two tests:
Is the analogous situation (i.e., the story of the violinist) similar in all relevant respects to the situation at issue (i.e., pregnancy)?

Is the conclusion drawn in the analogous situation plausible?

Front 52

Is the First Condition Satisfied?

Is the violinist story similar in all relevant respects to pregnancy as a result of consensual sex?

Back 52

Thomson’s Response:

Insofar as extreme conservatives do not allow abortion when pregnancy is a result of rape, she has shown that their position is unacceptable.

She has shown that extreme conservatives are wrong to assume that the right to life of fetuses can only be overridden by the right to life of pregnant women.

Front 53

The Story of the “People Seeds”

Back 53

The purpose of this story is to demonstrate that when women take “reasonable precautions,” and nevertheless get pregnant, it is ethically permissible for them to have an abortion because the right to life of fetuses does not entitle them to continue using a pregnant woman’s body.

This is another argument by analogy.

Front 54

Assessing this Argument by Analogy

"People Seeds"

Back 54

Is the analogous situation (i.e., the story of the people seeds) similar in all relevant respects to the situation at issue (i.e., pregnancy)?

Is the conclusion drawn in the analogous situation plausible?

Front 55

Responsibility

Back 55

 Are women who get pregnant despite the use of birth control responsible:
- For becoming pregnant?
- For the care of the fetus?

Front 56

Two Obligations

Back 56

- An obligation to help
- An obligation not to kill

Is there an important difference in the strength of these obligations?

Which obligation applies to:
- The violinist?
- Fetuses?
- People seeds?