CONTEMPORARY MORAL PROBLEMS LECTURE 9 ABORTION PART 1 THE MAIN ISSUE. Is abortion morally permissible? Let us avoid:

Transcription

1 CONTEMPORARY MORAL PROBLEMS LECTURE 9 ABORTION PART 1 1 THE MAIN ISSUE Is abortion morally permissible? Let us avoid: 1. Loaded labels such as "pro-choice," "antichoice," "pro-life," "pro-abortion" 2. Appeals to emotion 3. Arguments of the form "If Abortion were illegal." 2 SOME POTENTIALLY RELEVANT FACTS The development of a human organism from conception to child to adult is a gradual process without sharp biological discontinuities. Conception a single-celled fertilized egg Prior to 14 days possibility of splitting into twins Around 14 days "primitive streak" visible Around 2 months some brain activity Around 3 months sharp drop in miscarriage rate Around 5 months viability (2002) Around 6 months viability (1973) Around 9 months birth 3 1

2 THE CONSERVATIVE POSITION Conservative Position: Abortion is seriously wrong. This view often relies on the claim that the fetus is a person or "human being" and so killing it is like killing any other person and hence seriously wrong. To support the claim that the fetus is a person, the conservative often asks where we should draw the line between a fertilized egg and a child. 4 THOMSON'S THESIS Even if the fetus is a person with a full-blown right to life, abortion is morally permissible in some kinds of cases. Thomson thinks that it is clear that an early fetus is not a person (just as an acorn is not an oak tree). However, for the purposes of seeing what follows, she is prepared to concede that it is. 5 THOMSON'S THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Thomson is addressing the morality of abortion from the perspective of a rights-based moral theory. She is not a consequentialist. She believes that there are constraints and, just as importantly, options. 6 2

3 AN ARGUMENT AGAINST ABORTION [1] Every person has a right to life. [2] A fetus is a person. [2] So, a fetus has a right to life. [3] That right to life outweighs the mother s right to determine what happens to her body. [4] So, abortion is impermissible. This may sound plausible but Thomson presents 7 THE FAMOUS VIOLINIST Question: Would it be wrong to unplug yourself? Question: Would it be wrong to unplug yourself if you are asked to stay connected for 9 years? If it would seriously harm you? Lesson: a right to life does not necessarily trump all other rights. So, it doesn t follow from the assumption that a person has a right to life, that they can never be killed (even if they are innocent). 8 THE EXTREME VIEW The Extreme View: Abortion is always wrong. If the extreme view is correct, then [1] abortion is impermissible in the case of a rape. The violinist case shows this claim is incorrect. [2] abortion is impermissible in the case in which the mother will die without the abortion. But consider 9 3

4 THE EXPANDING CHILD Question: Would it be wrong for you to kill the child in order to save yourself? No. Even though the child is innocent, you have a right to defend yourself from death in this case. So, the extreme view is false. Note: This is not to say one has a right to do anything necessary to save one s life. 10 OBJECTION But isn't the argument from a right to life plausible if the mother s life is not at stake? No, consider 11 HENRY FONDA'S COOL TOUCH Question: Do I have a right to Henry Fonda s cool touch? Thomson thinks I do not. It would be nice of him, but it is not morally required of him to fly out from the West Coast and touch my brow. So, having a right to life does not guarantee having either a right to be given the use of or a right to be allowed continued use of another person s body even if one needs it for life itself. 12 4

5 VOLUNTARY PREGNANCY But even if abortion is permissible in rape cases where a woman has not voluntarily become pregnant, what about other cases? In particular, what if a woman voluntarily engages in intercourse knowing it may result in pregnancy and she becomes pregnant? Consider 13 THE PEOPLE SEEDS Question: Does the plant person have a right to the use of your house? Analogously, if a woman uses contraception and becomes pregnant, it isn t clear that the fetus has a right to the use of her body. Hence, even if the mother's life is not at stake and she has not been raped, abortion can be morally permissible. 14 BEYOND RIGHTS: DUTIES OF BENEFICENCE But even if a person does not have a right to the use of your body, might it not still be morally wrong to withdraw the use of your body? What if the violinist needs only one hour of your time? Thomson claims you ought to allow him to use your kidneys for the hour it would be indecent to refuse" (even though he has no right to the aid). 15 5

6 SAMARITANISM Good Samaritanism making a large sacrifice in order to save the life of another. Minimally Decent Samaritanism making a small sacrifice in order to save the life of another. We are morally required to be minimally decent Samaritans, but not to be good (or superlative) Samaritans. It is not morally required of anyone that he give long stretches of his life nine years or nine months to sustaining the life of a person who has no special right to demand it. 16 THE LIMITS OF THE ARGUMENT 1 (1) If a pregnancy is not as much of a hardship as being attached to a violinist for nine months, then it isn't clear that abortion will be justified (even if it is the result of rape). Thomson admits that if carrying a pregnancy to term requires only minimally decent samaritanism, then abortion is impermissible in that case. 17 THE LIMITS OF THE ARGUMENT 2 (2) If one becomes pregnant intentionally or negligently fails to use birth control, then it seems that abortion will be impermissible. The Violinist Lottery You knowingly and voluntarily sign up for a lottery in which 1 person out of 70 is picked to support the violinist for 9 months. You lose and are connected. Question: Are you morally permitted to detach? 18 6

7 THE LIMITS OF THE ARGUMENT 3 (3) What if one uses contraception which one knows will sometimes fail? - Like the Violinist Lottery or the People Seeds? Thomson s Reply: There must be some threshold level of "reasonable precaution" since it is possible to avoid a pregnancy due to rape by hysterectomy. The Issue: When does one act so as to "give" the resulting fetus the right to use one s body? 19 THE LIMITS OF THE ARGUMENT 4 (4) If it is possible to "detach" from the fetus without killing it, then one is permitted to detach but not to kill. To see this consider Stabbing the Violinist You unplug from the violinist and he unexpectedly continues to live. Question: Are you morally justified in stabbing him to death? 20 THE LIMITS OF THE ARGUMENT 5 Killing the Violinist In order to free yourself from the violinist, you do not merely have to unplug a cord. Instead, you must cut him open in such a way that he will die from the wounds. Question: Are you morally permitted to kill him? If not, then (5) Thomson s argument may not justify certain kinds of abortion which involve killing the fetus (at least in cases in which the mother s life is not at stake). 21 7

8 THE LIMITS OF THE ARGUMENT 6 (6) If one is, as a utilitarian will claim, morally required to be much more than a minimally decent Samaritan, then probably few abortions (of non-defective fetuses) will be permissible if the fetus is a person with the same moral status as other persons. Saving someone's life is an enormous benefit. Different versions of utilitarianism give different results. 22 BUT IS IT A PERSON? Of course, most of this is predicated on the assumption that the fetus is a person. If "person" means "member of our species," then a fetus is probably a person, but species membership seems morally irrelevant. If "person" means "the kind of creature with a right to life," then we must ask what kinds of creatures have such a right. 23 8