Lecture 3 Abortion: Pro Life

1
Lecture 3Abortion Pro Life
2
What would you think if.?

• Close your eyes for a moment and imagine that,
  due to advances in medical technology, the skin
  became transparent from conception to birth, so
  that when a mother put aside her clothing the
  developing fetus would be in full public view. Or
  suppose instead, or in addition, that anyone
  could at any time take a fetus from its womb, air
  it, observe it, fondle it, and then stick it back
  in after a few minutes. And we could further
  suppose that this made for healthier babies, and
  so maybe laws would be passed requiring that it
  be done regularly. And we might also imagine that
  pregnancy took nine days rather than nine months.
  What then would we think of aborting a fetus?
  What would you think of aborting it? And what
  does that say about what you now think?R.
  Wertheimer, Understanding the Abortion Argument

3
The golden rule argument (against stealing)

• If you are consistent and think that stealing is
  morally permissible, then you will think that it
  would be all right if somebody stole things from
  you.
• You do not think that it would be all right if
  somebody stole things from you.
• Therefore,
• If you are consistent, you cannot think stealing
  is morally permissible.

4
The golden rule argument (against abortion)

• If you are consistent and think that abortion is
  morally permissible, then you will think that it
  would be all right if you have been aborted.
• You do not think that it would be all right if
  you have been aborted.
• Therefore,
• If you are consistent, you cannot think abortion
  is morally permissible.
• What does all right mean in the premises?
• If it means morally permissible, (2) is
  questionable.
• If it means desirable for you, (1) is
  questionable.
• If it means different things in (1) and (2), then
  both (1) and (2) may be true, but the argument is
  invalid.

5
Don Marquis against abortion

• Don Marquis offered a very carefully argued
  argument against abortion. He says that previous
  condemnations of abortion were based on
  questionable assumptions.
• For example, some defended an anti-abortion view
  by claiming that fetus is a person, which is
  justly regarded by their opponents as simply
  begging the question.
• Others relied on the claim that fetus is a
  potential person, which is obviously true, but
  now the big question is whether we have moral
  obligations toward entities that are merely
  potential persons.
• Contraception and not having sex deprive many
  potential persons of life but they are not
  considered morally wrong!

6
Marquis strategy

• The best way to decide whether it is morally
  wrong to kill a human fetus is to see (1) what
  makes it wrong to kill an adult human, and then
  to see (2) whether that wrong-making
  characteristic is also present in the fetus
  case.
• His answer by killing someone you are depriving
  him of the value of his future. This is one of
  the worst things you can do to anyone.
• What makes killing any adult human being prima
  facie seriously wrong is the loss of his or her
  future.
• Prima facie means initially. Other
  considerations can make the killing justified
  (for example, if you kill someone in
  self-defense.)

7
Four advantages of this answer

• The wrongness of killing is not restricted to one
  biological kind (human beings or Homo sapiens).
  It would also be wrong to kill beings from other
  planets who had the future like ours.
• It leaves space for the possibility that even
  killing some actually existing animals might be
  wrong in that sense.
• It does not imply that active euthanasia is
  wrong.
• It straightforwardly implies that it is wrong to
  kill children and infants (which is often a
  problem for pro-abortion advocates).

8
Relevance for abortion

• The implication for abortion controversy is
  obvious If what makes killing someone wrong is
  that it deprives him of all the value of his
  future, then if abortion is depriving fetus of
  his future, it must be wrong too. Or, more
  clearly
• Killing an adult human is wrong because it
  results in DF (depriving the adult human of his
  future).
• Any action that results in DF is wrong.
• Abortion results in DF (for a fetus).Therefore,
• Abortion is wrong.

9
An analogy

• Here is an analogical argument, which shows why
  inflicting pain on animals is wrong
• Inflicting pain on an adult human is wrong
  because it results in suffering.
• Any action that results in suffering is wrong.
• Inflicting pain on animals results in
  suffering.Therefore,
• Inflicting pain on animals is wrong.

10
Objections to Marquis argument

• In cases of contraception someone is also
  deprived of a valuable future, so the implication
  would seem to be that contraception is morally
  wrong as well.
• Reply There is actually no one who could
  be deprived of a valuable future before the sperm
  and ovum form a zygote.
• Some old people may not have a valuable future,
  so it would seem that it is OK to kill them.
• Reply What Marquis proposes is the
  sufficient condition for the wrongness of
  killing, not a necessary condition. So, killing
  in that situation might be wrong for other
  reasons.
• On Marquis view, killing of an 79-year old
  person would be less wrong than killing a 19-year
  old.
• Reply Maybe it is less wrong!

11
The pro-life position after Roe vs. Wade

• The historical decision of the Supreme Court in
  1973.
• Abortion becomes a constitutionally protected
  right, based on a right of privacy.
• Pro-lifers lose the possibility of influencing
  the legislative process. Many believe that this
  led to the radicalization of the anti-abortion
  movement.
• Even some legal scholars who support abortion
  consider Roe unwise, as an instance of
  unjustified judicial activism.
• Judicial activism is when judges of the Supreme
  Court impose their political views on the nation
  by using unconvincing interpretations of the
  Constitution.
• The issue is still the main test in the
  confirmation of the new judges.