Contraception and Abortion

standard arguments

ConservativeCP1) Fetus is a person.CC) Abortion is morally wrong.

LiberalLP1) Fetus is not a person.LC) Abortion is morally acceptable.

These standard arguments are invalid. To make them valid, we need to add

more premises – thereby exposing the underlying assumptions.

standard arguments Conservative

CP1) Fetus is a person.CP2) Abortion = killing a fetus. CP3) If x is a person, then killing x is morally wrong.CC) Abortion is morally wrong.

LiberalLP1) Fetus is not a person.LP2) Abortion = killing a fetus.LP3) If x is not a person, then killing x is morally acceptable.LC) Abortion is morally acceptable.

Two assumptions: 1. Abortion = killing a fetus.2. Killing a person is always wrong.

If these assumptions are correct, then the key issue is personhood: the acceptability of abortion depends on whether the fetus is a person.

Are these assumptions correct?

problem 1: the wrongness of killing

Conservatives: Is killing a person always morally wrong?

What about: killing a person in self-defense… killing a person in a just war…

Liberals: Is killing a non-person always morally acceptable?

What about: wantonly killing horses “just for kicks”… blowing up a cat in a microwave “just for

kicks”…

problem 2: personhood

Imagine that aliens arrive on earth. They’re trying to determine whether we are persons or a food source. What should they look for?

What are the essential characteristics of personhood? What is to be a person?

what makes x a person?

Viability: to be a person is to be capable of living as an independent entity

Problems: cats, dogs, and spiders are all viable artificial incubation makes a fetus of any age viable viability varies from infant to infant, culture, race

Rational thought: to be a person is to be capable of rational thought

Problems: what about infants and young children? what about the chronically comatose and severely

mentally handicapped?

what makes x a person?

Parental bonding: to be a person is to be emotionally connected to one’s parents

Problems: penguins, whales, and chimpanzees all experience parental

bonding what about parents who don’t bond with child? what about children without parents?

Social membership: to be a person is to be able to communicate and function as a member of social group

Problems: elephants, wolves, and antelope all have social membership what about people who are alienated or dehumanized?

what makes x a person?

A future like ours: to be a person is to be such that if one does not die prematurely, then one will have a future like ours

Problems: being a potential x doesn’t make something an x what about the chronically comatose and severely

mentally handicapped?

A soul: to be a person is to have a soul Problems:

souls are more controversial than the premises of the standard arguments

which creatures have souls? how are we to tell if the fetus has a soul?

what makes x a person?

Human DNA: to be a person is to have human DNA

In argument form: P1) If x has human DNA, then x is a person P2) The fetus has human DNA. C) Therefore, the fetus is a person.

Problem: dead skin cells have human DNA (so P1 is false)

Revising the argument: P1) If x is a person, then x has human DNA. P2) The fetus has human DNA. C) Therefore, the fetus is a person.

Problem: the revised argument commits the fallacy of affirming

the consequent

Let’s take a BREAK!

shifting the debate

We have seen that the appeal to personhood is misguided: It is irrelevant (b/c some person-killings are acceptable and

some non-person-killings are still wrong). It is unhelpful (b/c it is not clear what personhood is and

whether fetuses have it). Thomson urges us to accept, for the sake of

argument, that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception:

“…it seems to me to be of great interest to ask what happens if, for the sake of argument, we allow [that the fetus is a person]. How, precisely, are we supposed to get from there to the conclusion that abortion is morally impermissible?” (Thomson, A Defense of Abortion)

Answer: typically, via an appeal to a right to life.

the right to life argument

P1) A fetus is a person.P2) A person has a right to life, which is stronger and more stringent than one’s right to decide what happens in and to one’s body.C1) Therefore, a fetus has a right to life, which is stronger and more stringent than one’s right to decide what happens in and to one’s body.P3) If x has a right to life, which is stronger and more stringent than one’s right to decide what happens in and to one’s body, then killing x is always wrong.C2) Therefore, killing a fetus is always wrong.

Is a right to life always stronger and more stringent than one’s right to decide what happens in and to one’s body?

the right to life

Consider the violinist:“Imagine that you wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious (famous) violinist. The violinist has a fatal kidney ailment, and so the Society for Music Lovers, upon discovering that you are the only person with exactly the right blood type, kidnapped you in order to have his circulatory system plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. You are told that everyone is very sorry, but it’s done – the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug him would be to kill him. But, they say, it’s only for nine months (he needs that much time to recover).” (Thomson, A Defense of Abortion)

the right to life

Question: “Do you have a moral obligation to stay plugged into the

violinist? What if the violinist needs you to stay plugged in for nine years? Or, the rest of your life?”

If the answer to any of these questions is “no”, then that shows that the right to life does not always trump one’s right to decide what happens in and to one’s body. Accordingly, (P2) is false and the argument is unsound.

Relevant similarities between the violinist case and cases of pregnancy due to rape: S1: Person stands to die. S2: Involuntary (no consent).

the right to life

Thomson is using an argument from analogy.

Violinist: x (is a person), y (needs use of your body),

z (you did not consent) you have no moral obligation to keep person alive

Abortion (rape case): x (is a person), y (needs use of your body),

z (you did not consent) so, you have no moral obligation to keep person alive in this case as well

the right to life

The point: The right to life consists not in the right not to be killed, but in

the right not to be killed unjustly. The upshot:

“It is by no means enough to show that the fetus is a person, and to remind us that all persons have a right to life – we need to be shown also that killing the fetus violates its right to life, i.e., that abortion is unjust killing. And is it? …[The violinist case shows] that in a case of pregnancy due to rape the mother [has the right to “unplug” herself, so to speak].”

What about the moral acceptability/wrongness of abortion in cases of pregnancy that are not due to rape?

Consider the following revised version of the right to life argument:

the invitation argument

P1) A fetus is a person.P2) A person has a right to life, which is the right not to be killed unjustly.C1) Therefore, a fetus has a right to life, which is the right not to be killed unjustly.P3) If x has a right to life, which is the right not to be killed unjustly, then if y issues an invitation to x for x to use y’s body, then y’s killing x is morally wrong.C2) Therefore, if y issues an invitation to x for x to use y’s body, then y’s killing x is morally wrong.

invitations

Let us assume that an invitation entails obligation. This would explain why abortion in the case of pregnancy due

to rape is morally acceptable: there is no such invitation. But, Thomson asks,

“In what pregnancy could it be supposed that the mother has given the unborn person [a right to the use of her body for food and shelter]? It is not as if there are unborn persons drifting about the world, to whom a woman who wants a child says, ‘I invite you in.’”

One might object that if a woman voluntarily engages in intercourse, undertaken in full knowledge of the chance a pregnancy might result from it, and then she does become pregnant, she is partly responsible for the presence of the unborn child inside her, and so has a moral obligation to “stay plugged in”, so to speak.

the revised invitation argument

P1) A fetus is a person.P2) A person has a right to life, which is the right not to be killed unjustly.C1) Therefore, a fetus has a right to life, which is the right not to be killed unjustly.P3) If x has a right to life, which is the right not to be killed unjustly, then if y voluntarily A-s in full knowledge of the chance that A-ing might result in there being some x that needs to use y’s body in order to live, then if y’s A-ing results in there being some x that needs to use y’s body in order to live y’s killing x is morally wrong.C2) Therefore, if y voluntarily A-s in full knowledge of the chance that A-ing might result in there being some x that needs to use y’s body in order to live, then if y’s A-ing results in there being some x that needs to use y’s body in order to live y’s killing x is morally wrong.

invitations Consider the burglar:

Imagine that your room is stuffy. You open a window to air it (knowing that there is a 1% chance a burglar might be around), and a burglar climbs in.

Question: Do you have a moral obligation to allow the burglar to stay?

In this scenario, you opened the window voluntarily, with full knowledge of what burglars are and do. But, still, despite that, you have no obligation to allow the burglar to stay. It would be absurd to claim otherwise.

The upshot: It cannot be true that voluntary action undertaken with full

knowledge of the possible (though unlikely and undesired) consequences entails an obligation to accept those consequences.

Accordingly, (P3) is false and the revised invitation argument is unsound.

invitations

This is another argument from analogy. Burglar:

x (is a person), y (needs to stay), z (was able to enter because of an action which you voluntarily engaged in with full knowledge of the possible consequences) you have no moral obligation to keep person alive

Abortion (contraception case): x (is a person), y (needs to stay), z (was able to enter

because of an action which you voluntarily engaged in with full knowledge of the possible consequences) so, you have no moral obligation to keep person alive in this case as well

One might object that the burglar is not innocent, whereas the fetus is.

the doubly revised invitation argument

P1) A fetus is a person.P2) A person has a right to life, which is the right not to be killed unjustly.C1) Therefore, a fetus has a right to life, which is the right not to be killed unjustly.P3) If x has a right to life, which is the right not to be killed unjustly, then if y voluntarily A-s in full knowledge of the chance that A-ing might result in there being some innocent x that needs to use y’s body in order to live, then if y’s A-ing results in there being some innocent x that needs to use y’s body in order to live y’s killing x is morally wrong.C2) Therefore, if y voluntarily A-s in full knowledge of the chance that A-ing might result in there being some innocent x that needs to use y’s body in order to live, then if y’s A-ing results in there being some innocent x that needs to use y’s body in order to live y’s killing x is morally wrong.

invitations Consider the homeless person:

Imagine that it is not a burglar who climbs in, but a wandering, innocent, homeless person who falls in.

Question: Do you have an obligation to allow the homeless person to stay?

In this scenario, we can assume that you opened the window voluntarily, with full knowledge of what wandering, innocent, homeless people are and do. But, still, despite that, you have no obligation to allow the homeless person to stay. It would be absurd to claim otherwise.

The upshot: It cannot be true that voluntary action undertaken with full

knowledge of the possible (though unlikely and undesired) consequences entails an obligation to accept those consequences, even in the case where the person affected is innocent.

Accordingly, (P3) is false and the doubly revised invitation argument is unsound.

invitations

Consider the people seeds:“Imagine that there were such things as “people seeds”, and they drift about in the air like pollen, and if you open your windows, one may drift in and take root in your carpets and upholstery. You don’t want children, so you fix up your windows with mesh screens, the very best you can buy. But, as it happens, one of the screens in a window is defective, and a seed drifts in and takes root, and begins to develop.”

invitations

In this case, you knowingly keep carpets and upholstered furniture, and you know that the screens are sometimes defective. You could live without furniture and with bare floors, or with sealed windows and doors, but you don’t.

But the fact that you do these things voluntarily, with full knowledge of the potential consequences, does not seem to make it so that you have a moral obligation to allow the people-plants to develop in your house. “…for by the same token anyone can avoid

pregnancy due to rape by having a hysterectomy, or anyway by never leaving home without a (reliable!) army.”

invitations

Thomson’s homeless person and people seeds cases are intended to show that abortion is acceptable in at least some cases of contraceptive failure.

Some relevant similarities amongst these cases: S1: Innocent person stands to die. S2: Reasonable precautions taken. S3: Defect in protection.

The argument is once again an argument from analogy…

invitations

Homeless person and people seeds: v (is an innocent person), w (needs to stay), x (was able

to enter because of an action which you voluntarily engaged in with full knowledge of the possible consequences), y (you took reasonable precautions to prevent y), z (y resulted because of a defect in protection) you have no moral obligation to keep person alive

Abortion (contraceptive failure case): v (is an innocent person), w (needs to stay), x (was able

to enter because of an action which you voluntarily engaged in with full knowledge of the possible consequences), y (you took reasonable precautions to prevent y), z (y resulted because of a defect in protection) so, you have no moral obligation to keep person alive in this case as well

in-class activity

Assess Thomson’s people-seeds analogy: Come up with what you think might be

considered a morally relevant disanalogy between the people-seeds case and cases of abortion due to contraceptive failure.

Explain (1) why it might be considered a disanology and (2) why it might be considered morally relevant.

risky behavior

One might object that abortion is still morally wrong. For: if it is morally wrong to voluntarily do that which one knows

may result in killing a person, then, morally speaking, one must not voluntarily do that act – to do that act is morally wrong.

Let’s see whether this objection is plausible: P1) One must not voluntarily do that which one knows may result in killing a person – to do so is morally wrong.P2) Driving a car is a voluntary action that we know may result in killing a person.C) Therefore, one must not drive a car – to do so is morally wrong!

risky behavior

Of course, driving a car is not morally wrong. Even though driving may result in killing a person (and despite the

fact that we all know that this is so), it is clearly morally acceptable to drive.

We need not take the precaution here prescribed: namely, not driving.

So, we may conclude that there must be something wrong with the claim that it is morally wrong to voluntarily do that which one knows may result in killing a person.

Unless there is a relevant difference between these cases, we lack reason to think that abortion is wrong in those cases in which a woman voluntarily engages in contraceptive sex, undertaken in full knowledge of the chance a pregnancy might result.

risky behavior

Again, consider some of the relevant similarities between having contraceptive sex and driving: S1: Voluntary (consent). S2: Reasonable precautions taken. S3: If there is an accident (a defect in

protection), then a person dies. S4: Done anyways.

One might object that sex was “designed” to make babies, whereas driving was not “designed” to kill someone

risky behavior But, consider the argument applied to shooting guns (which were

designed to kill):P1) One must not voluntarily do that which one knows may result in killing an innocent person – to do so is morally wrong.P2) Shooting a gun is a voluntary action that we know may result in killing an innocent person.C) Therefore, one must not shoot guns – to do so is morally wrong!

Of course, shooting a gun isn’t wrong when you take the necessary precautions. If, after taking such precautions your shooting the gun results in someone’s death, due to a defect in protection, you are not doing anything morally wrong by shooting the gun.

Applied to the case of abortion, this suggests that abortion isn’t wrong when you take the necessary precautions. If, after taking such precautions your sexual activity still results in someone’s death, due to a defect in protection, you are not doing anything morally wrong by having an abortion.

sometimes...

Thomson clearly does not think that it follows from her argument that abortion is acceptable in all cases. She maintains that there are many cases in which an abortion is indeed morally wrong: e.g., if a woman wants an abortion during her seventh

month simply in order to avoid the nuisance of postponing a trip abroad, or if the fetus could be removed from her body without killing it or harming her, etc.

Question: People can be negligent in both sex and driving: what

counts as taking appropriate precautions? When is our behavior appropriate and when is it

negligent?