Evaluating the Moral Arguments on Abortion

1. The Morality of Abortion Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana

2. Outline Introduction: What this chapter is about The Person Argument The question of Personhood Marquis: An alternative to the person argument Thomson: Is it always wrong to kill an innocent? Conclusion

3. What this chapter is about Deepening our understanding of the arguments on both sides Introduction: What is at stake? Two opposite values • The fetus’ ``right to life” • The mother’s ``right over her own body”

4. Outline Introduction: What this chapter is about The Person Argument The question of Personhood Marquis: An alternative to the person argument Thomson: Is it always wrong to kill an innocent? Conclusion

5. The Person Argument: The Person Argument An important distinction • P1: The fetus is an innocent person • P2: It is wrong to kill an innocent person • CC: It is wrong to kill a fetus The argument is valid: is it sound? P1: what is a person? P2: is it always true?

6. Outline Introduction: What this chapter is about The Person Argument The question of Personhood Marquis: An alternative to the person argument Thomson: Is it always wrong to kill an innocent? Conclusion

7. The question of personhood is crucial: To assess the argument, we need: • Either sufficient conditions that the fetus satisfies • Or necessary conditions that the fetus does not satisfy The question of Personhood The Problem What makes a person a person? Persons are what we don’t kill lightly • Class survey: what is ok to kill? • The alien thought experiment Is there any satisfactory criteria?

8. Criteria often given by the opponents: Criteria often given by the defendants: The question of Personhood Discussion Being alive Human shape Human DNA Intelligence Communication skills Moral agent Problem: Problem: All animals Robots Any human cell Mentally handicapped and insane people TOO BROAD TOO NARROW

9. The question of Personhood Conclusion The question of personhood: Dead end? A proposal:Sentience as a necessary and sufficient conditions for not killing lightly  The absurdities are thus avoided Consequences: • Animals • Fetus after 20th week Another option is to avoid the question of Personhood altogether: Marquis and Thomson

10. Outline Introduction: What this chapter is about The Person Argument The question of Personhood Marquis: An alternative to the person argument Thomson: Is it always wrong to kill an innocent? Conclusion

11. Beyond the question of personhood Marquis: A future like ours The question of wrongful killing: criteria? • Against desire? • Interruption of valuable experience? Marquis’ proposal:An instance of killing is wrong when it deprives someone of a valuable future like ours.  general explanation of why we think it is wrong to kill Consequences: • VAS ok • Wrong to kill humans, animals, and fetuses Marquis: abortion is wrong because it deprives the fetus of a valuable future like ours

12. Beyond the question of personhood Steinbock: Objections against Marquis What does it take to have a future?: Personal identity, that is, a way to link the individual now to the future Two theories of personal identity: Physical Theory of identity (Phys-TI) Psychological Theory of identity (Psy-TI) Dilemma: • If Phys-TI, absurdity • If Psy-TI, then sentience is necessary As in the case of the Person Argument, it seems that there is no wrongful killing without sentience

13. Outline Introduction: What this chapter is about The Person Argument The question of Personhood Marquis: An alternative to the person argument Thomson: Is it always wrong to kill an innocent? Conclusion

14. Deals with Premise 2 of the Person Argument: Is it always wrong to kill an innocent person? Thomson and The Violinist Thomson’s analogy: hooked up on a violinist without consent Thomson’s analogy: In which cases would you think it is ok to unhook yourself?  Thomson’s point: the answer is not obvious  We have to distinguish between cases

15. In which cases does the analogy work – Warren? • Rape • Mother’s health endangered Thomson’s Analogy: Assessment What about the other cases? – failure of birth control Jane English: performance and reception These are analogies: can we find a rational basis for the argument?

16. Thomson’s main thesis: We are not morally obligated to help another in such circumstances, but it will be a great moral favor An Important Distinction: Moral Obligations vs. Moral Favor Moral Obligation Something that one must do on pain of immorality BLAME if not done Ex: keep your promise Moral Favor Something that one can do above moral obligations PRAISE if done Ex: Britney Spears’ Touch and the Good Samaritan Keeping the child in case of unwanted pregnancies is a moral favor, not a moral obligation

17. Thomson’s main thesis on abortion: A continuum of cases, ranking from clear cases of great moral favors and moral indecency Thomson: Conclusion Moral Indecency Good Samaritan Moral favor Moral Obligation Sacrifice Beware of the slippery slope !

18. Outline Introduction: What this chapter is about The Person Argument The question of Personhood Marquis: An alternative to the person argument Thomson: Is it always wrong to kill an innocent? Conclusion

19. The Morality of Abortion Conclusion A central notion for wrongful killing:sentience An important distinction for assessing our actions Moral favors vs. Moral Obligation An important lesson for abortion: No straightforward answer but continuum of cases: • Clear cases in which abortion is wrong • Clear cases in which abortion is right • Continuum of cases in the middle