A Defense of Abortion

1. A Defense of Abortion

2. For Next Time Finish reading Thomson’s “A Defense of Abortion.” Review sheets handed out Wednesday in lecture. Nathaniel Kim please see me after class.

3. Is a Fetus a Person? Is a fetus a person? This is a difficult question. Answering it would require: • An analysis of personhood (or at least some sufficient conditions) • Enough knowledge about the nature of fetuses to know if they had those properties.

4. Is a Fetus a Person? Argument for Personhood • The development of the fetus from conception to early childhood is continuous. • At some point in its development, the fetus is a person. • There is no determinate point on the spectrum at which the fetus becomes a person. • Therefore, the fetus is a person from conception.

5. Is a Fetus a Person? Such arguments are called slippery slope arguments and they are fallacious. Consider: • The development of an oak tree is continuous from acorn to full maturity. • At some point in its development the acorn is an oak tree. • There is no determinate point on the spectrum at which an acorn becomes an oak tree. • Therefore, an acorn is an oak tree.

6. Is a Fetus a Person Thomson does grant that the fetus is a human person “well-before birth.” (52) So she thinks: • The fetus is not a person at conception. • It becomes a person at some time before birth.

7. Thomson’s Question Thomson asks an important question: What is the argument from the claim that the fetus is a person to the impermissibility of abortion?

8. Thomson’s Question “Opponents of abortion commonly spend most of their time establishing that the fetus is a person, and hardly any time explaining the step from there to the impermissibility of abortion. Perhaps they think the step to simple and obvious to require much argument…Whatever the explanation, I suggest that the step they take is neither easy nor obvious…” (53)

9. Thomson’s Question So simply grant, for the sake of argument, that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. Does this entail that abortion is always morally impermissible?

10. Against Abortion: First Pass Argument Against Abortion • Every person has a right to life. • A fetus is a person. • So a fetus has a right to life. • To abort a fetus is to kill it. • Therefore, abortion is never moral.

11. Against Abortion: First Pass But this misses a key feature of the case: • The rights of the fetus are not the only rights that are relevant. • The mother has rights as well, in particular the right to control (as far as she is able) what occurs to and in her body. • This is what makes the case difficult and controversial.

12. What about the Mother’s Rights? “No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body; everyone would grant that. But surely a person’s right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother’s right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be performed.” (53)

13. Against Abortion: Second Pass Argument Against Abortion (Addendum) • The fetus is a person and thus has a right to life, and the mother has a right to self-control. • Forcing the mother to carry the fetus to term against her wishes violates her right. • Allowing her to abort the fetus violates its right. • Therefore, the rights of the fetus and mother conflict in this case. • Whenever rights conflict one must first respect the stronger/more stringent right. • A right to life is always stronger/more stringent than a right to self control. • Therefore, the mother must carry the fetus to term: an abortion is impermissible.

14. The Extreme View This argument doesn’t support what Thomson calls “the extreme view.” • This view maintains that abortion is never permissible, even to save the mother’s life. • But the argument just given says nothing about what to do when two identical rights conflict. • We would have to balance the mother’s right to life against that of the fetus. • Which right is stronger?

15. The Extreme View Isn’t this just a case of self-defense in which the mother can save her own life? There are a two complications that must be taken into account: • The fetus is innocent • The abortion must be carried out be a third party

16. The Extreme View The easiest cases of taking a life to protect your own involve killing an aggressor. But what about cases in which the other person is innocent? • The fetus is not attacking the mother.

17. The Extreme View Thomson’s Case: • You are trapped in a very small room with a very rapidly growing child. • It will grow so big that it will eventually crush you and kill you. • Can you kill the child to save yourself?

18. The Extreme View Rock Climber • You and a friend are on a cliff and are tied to the same line. • You both fall and are caught by the rope with you above him. The rope won’t hold you both. • You can disconnect yourself saving him, or cut his rope. If you do neither, you both die. Are you permitted to cut the line?

19. The Extreme View Cases like this seem to indicate that it is permissible to cause the death of an innocent person in defense of your own.

20. The Extreme View The second complication is that a woman cannot safely perform an abortion on herself. • Grant that the mother can intervene to save her own life. • It doesn’t follow that third party (i.e. an abortion doctor) can do so. • This person’s life is not in peril, and they are deciding to end one life rather than another. • What gives them the authority to do so?

21. The Extreme View It may be true that a third party cannot intervene if there is no just way to choose between the two parties. • Rock climber case may be like this But things are not always like this.

22. The Extreme View Coat Case • Jones and Smith will both freeze to death without a coat. • Smith steals Jones’ coat. • Both men have a right to life. • Perhaps Smith is even in his rights to steal the coat! • Can a third party who knows this intervene to give Jones his coat back? • Thomson claims the answer is “yes.”

23. The Extreme View Similarly, in the case of abortion it is the woman’s body. • The woman has both a right to life and a right to control her body • The fetus is an unwanted and dangerous interloper. • Therefore, a third party can intervene on her behalf.

24. Against Abortion: Second Pass A more reasonable anti-abortion position allows exceptions in cases where the mother’s life is in peril. A position like this can be supported by the argument we gave.

25. Against Abortion: Second Pass Argument Against Abortion (Addendum) • The fetus has a right to life, and the mother has a right to self-control. • Forcing the mother to carry the fetus to term against her wishes violates her right. • Allowing her to abort the fetus violates its right. • Therefore, the rights of the fetus and mother conflict in this case. • Whenever rights conflict one must first respect the stronger/more stringent right. • A right to life is always stronger/more stringent than a right to self control. • Therefore, the mother must carry the fetus to term: an abortion is impermissible.

26. For Next Time Catch up and finish Thomson. Study!

27. Against Abortion: Second Pass Argument Against Abortion (Addendum) • The fetus has a right to life, and the mother has a right to self-control. • Forcing the mother to carry the fetus to term against her wishes violates her right. • Allowing her to abort the fetus violates its right. • Therefore, the rights of the fetus and mother conflict in this case. • Whenever rights conflict one must first respect the stronger/more stringent right. • A right to life is always stronger/more stringent than a right to self control. • Therefore, the mother must carry the fetus to term: an abortion is impermissible.

28. The Violinist Thomson argues that it is false that the right to life always takes priority over the right to self-control.

29. The Violinist You wake up one morning to find: • You have been attached by tubes to a famous violinist. • He is unconscious and totally unaware (innocent) of how he got there. • He has a rare blood disease that can only be cured by filtering his blood through another person’s kidneys. • The Society of Music Lovers tested you, found you (and only you) compatible, drugged, kidnapped, and performed surgery on you to link you to the violinist.

30. The Violinist “The director of the hospital tells you “Look, we’re sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you—we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it is only for nine months.” (54)

31. The Violinist Do you have to lay there for nine months until the violinist recovers? Can you permissibly unplug yourself, killing the violinist?

32. Against Abortion: Second Pass Argument Against Unplugging from the Violinist • The violinist is a person, and thus has a right to life, and you have a right to self-control. • Forcing you to lie there for nine months violates your right to self control. • Allowing you to unplug violates the violinist’s right to life. • Therefore, yours and the violinist’s rights conflict. • Whenever rights conflict one must first respect the stronger/more stringent right. • A right to life is always stronger/more stringent than a right to self control. • Therefore, you cannot unplug from the violinist.

33. The Violinist Thomson thinks that this is simply the wrong answer. • It would be very nice of you to stay plugged in. • But it would be “outrageous” for them to present the preceding argument and force you to stay plugged in.

34. The Violinist She argues that staying plugged-in to the violinist would be a supererogatory action. What this means is that it is not an obligationbut it is a morally good thing to do. • You would, perhaps, be a better person for staying plugged in. • But you are not morally required to do so.

35. The Violinist Plausible examples of supererogatory actions: • Giving to charity • Working at a soup kitchen on Thanksgiving • Risking one’s life to save another’s

36. The Violinist Having a right to life does not entail that someone else has to do everything they can to save your life. • For instance, no one has a right such that I am obligated to risk my own life for them. • No one has a right to life such that I must donate my kidney to save them. (Sorry, Zell Kravinsky!) • Etc.

37. Henry Fonda Thomson pushes this idea pretty far: • Suppose that the only thing that would save her life was “the touch of Henry Fonda’s cool hand on her fevered brow” (60) • She claims, she has no right to that. • This seems somewhat plausible if he needs to fly from shooting a movie in Australia to do so. • It seems a lot less plausible if he is in the same room.

38. Henry Fonda Put aside the sticky issue of rights. Does Fonda have a moralobligation to lay his hand on her brow? • Thomson denies that he does, even if he is in the very same room. • This seems wrong. • We aren’t always obligated to save a life it is in our power to save (if it poses a risk to our own life or a significant setback to our interests) • But if there is absolutely no risk at all and it is no trouble at all it seems as if we do have such an obligation.

39. Henry Fonda Two cases: • A baby is drowning in a raging river. It would be very dangerous to attempt a rescue, but you have a good possibility of success. • A baby is laying face down in a puddle in front of you. All you have to do is roll it over.

40. The Violinist We don’t have to agree with Thomson’s extreme position in order for her argument to work. • The physical/emotional/financial costs of being pregnant, raising a child, or even giving it up for adoption seem significant enough.

41. The Violinist A plausible diagnosis of the violinist case: • The violinist is a person, and so has a right to life. • You have a right to self-control. • As such, the violinist has no right to use your body without your permission. • You have given no such permission. • Therefore, you may disconnect.

42. The Violinist This is obviously analogous to a case of pregnancy resulting from rape: • The mother did not choose to become pregnant • She did not choose to do any actions that would run the risk of her becoming pregnant. • The fetus is using her body without permission. • Therefore, the mother can permissibly disconnect, that is, abort the fetus.

43. The Violinist Consent is very important here: • Suppose the Society of Music Lovers came to you and asked you to hook up to the violinist for 9 months. • You agree. • But now that you are hooked up, you have changed your mind. Can you permissibly disconnect? • It seems dubious that having agreed to help the violinist, your right to self-control now trumps his right to life. • You have given your consent, and it doesn’t seem like the kind of thing you can “take back.”

44. The Violinist The intuitive idea behind this is that one’s right to self-control can vary in strength. • In particular, giving someone consent to use your body in some way can affect its strength.

45. The Violinist Similarly, imagine a woman who deliberately sets out to become pregnant, but later changes her mind. • Given what has been said so far, it is difficult to see how she can permissibly get an abortion. • Keep in mind that this assumption relies on the premise that the fetus is a person with a right to life.

46. The Violinist A similar point can be made about a pregnancy that results from consensual sex: • The woman knows that pregnancy could result from having sex • She has sex despite knowing of the risk. • This is true even when contraceptives are used (we’ll come back to this issue). • This can be viewed as a kind of tacit consent: if a pregnancy results, the fetus will have a right to use her body.

47. A More Common Anti-Abortion Position The obvious move for the anti-abortion advocate to make, then, is to add another exception clause to their rule against abortion.

48. A More Common Anti-Abortion Position Abortion is impermissible except for in the following cases: • The mother’s life is imperiled by the pregnancy. • The mother became pregnant by being raped. This is usually the position defended today by opponents of abortion.

49. Announcements The final exam is in this room Monday Dec. 9th from 4-7 PM. Corey will hold extra office hours on Monday from 2-3:30. There will be a review session Sunday 2-5 Girvetz 1004.

50. Recap Where we are so far: • Thomson has argued that abortions are permissible when: • The mother’s life is in peril • The pregnancy is a result of rape. • For the second, the argument relied on the lack of consent for the fetus to use the mother’s body. • One might argue that in cases of consensual sex, the mother’s knowledge of the possibility of the pregnancy constitutes implicit consent. • She has chosen to engage in an activity that she knows could result in a person’s life being dependent on her.