Week 13 – Applying Ethical Theories to the Issue of Abortion.
Order:
1. Marquis: A Consequentialist Opposition to Abortion
2. Sherwin: A Feminist Defense of Abortion
1. Marquis (G&H, p. 355 – 372).
C: In the vast majority of cases abortion is just as wrong as the killing of an innocent adult human because abortion, like killing, deprives the fetus of a ‘future-like-ours’.
The assumption accepted in the majority of the literature on rights, i.e., that if abortion is wrong it is because a fetus is the sort of creature whose life it is morally wrong to end, will be accepted in this paper also.
Section I: The Structure of the old Debate.
The traditional debate on abortion has reached a stand-off, because neither side has successfully tied themselves to the moral wrongness or rightness of abortion. When specific moral principles have been presented, they are either too broad in the case of those opposed to abortion, or too narrow in the case of those in favour of abortion, yielding another stand-off. What’s more, the modified moral principles presented by either side are ambiguous, so we have a stand-off again.
So either the debate on abortion is irresolvable, or in need of rethinking. The problem seems to be that none have presented a proper account of the wrongness of ‘killing’. If we can determine what makes killing wrong, then we can see if the circumstances of abortion match the definition.
Section II: The Essence of Wrongful Killing, and How that Shows Abortion to be Wrong
Assumption: It is wrong to kill adult humans. – but why?
Because of the effect killing has on the victim, namely, the loss of all of one’s valuable future life experiences. [This is it!!! i.e., the reason that Marquis is a ‘Consequentialist’. The wrongness of killing, for Marquis, is a function of lost consequences, i.e., valuable life experiences. Note that he is NOT a Utilitarian because he does not defend an instruction to maximize good consequences, or in this case, minimize bad consequences.]
So, what makes killing wrong? The fact we deprive those killed of a future-like-ours.
This explanation is correct only if: 1. It matches our intuitions with respect to the wrongness of killing. 2. No other explanation provides a more plausible account of our intuitions.
The future-like-ours account matches our intuitions about: 1. Why killing is one of the worst types of wrongs, and 2. People’s resistance to death because of the future’s they lose.
The future-like-ours account avoids making the killing of humans the only wrongful killing, does not make active euthanasia wrong, and does account for the wrongness of baby-killing, unlike the alternatives in the abortion literature.
The implication for the issue of abortion if the future-like-ours account is that abortion will always be wrong because it amounts to depriving a fetus of a future-like-ours.
Admittedly, like killing in self-defense, there will be exceptions to the ‘killing is wrong’ assumption. There will therefore be instances where abortion is permissible, but those instances, like other instances of justified killing, will be extremely rare.
Section III: Defending Against Alternative Accounts of the Wrongfulness of Killing
Marquis does not believe that his future-like-ours account of the wrongfulness of killing is, or has to be, the only account of why killing is wrong. His account could be dismissed if a more plausible account was presented that does accept the permissibility of abortion.
Two Alternatives:
1. Killing is wrong because it discontinues life experiences
2. Killing is wrong because it violates our desire to continue living
1. fails because it’s not our current life experiences that we don’t want to lose, but our future experiences.
2. fails because it’s still wrong to kill those that have no desire to live, and because ‘desire to live’ is a parasitic desire on the desire for the goods of life.
Section IV. Another Challenge to the Future-Like-Ours account
A necessary condition of a future of value is the presence of a ‘valuer’, i.e., an agent that finds the material valuable. Since fetuses do not have this capacity, killing them must not be wrong.
This objection relies on an ambiguity: why must there be only one ‘valuer’, and why must they be the victim? There are plenty of killings that we still consider wrong, even though the victim is unaware.
Section V: Contraception.
The future-like-ours account will be wrong if it claims that contraception is immoral, but it does not. First, it does not require that the presence of human life be maximized. Second, it does require a definite subject, i.e., a fetus, not just a random set of sperm and ovum.
Conclusion: The part of a fetus that is most like an adult human is their future-like-ours, and this is what makes aborting a fetus just as wrong as killing an adult human.
2. Sherwin: A Feminist Perspective on Abortion.
C: Prior analyses of abortion, whether in favour or against, focus on the status of the fetus, and ignore women and the broader social issues. This essay is one attempt to analyze abortion in all its complexity and show that the central moral concern is women having control over their reproductive lives.
Feminists’ support of a woman’s right to choose whether to have an abortion is often, and wrongly, equated with the Liberal defense of the ‘pro-choice’ position. The conclusions may be the same, but the reasons differ radically.
The central difference between Feminist views of abortion and the traditional abortion debate is that the traditional debate focuses almost exclusively on the fetus and its moral status, with little or no regard for the woman in whom the fetus resides, or her broader social context.
Section I: The Significance of Women
Clearly, abortion plays a huge role in the lives of women because many women will seek out abortions even when they are illegal and unsafe. Those opposed to abortion infer that women’s decisions to abort are frivolous, while Feminists recognize a whole range of reasons beyond frivolity.
No one is in a better position to identify and weigh the relevant factors in deciding to have an abortion than the pregnant woman. Because there are no universally applicable answers to this problem, each woman should be guaranteed an equal right to choose for themselves (though it is possible that some women will make the wrong choice).
The key to the abortion issue is that women gain control over their reproductive (and sexual) lives.
Section II: Traditional View of the Fetus
Non-Feminist analyses of abortion identify the fetus as the central figure of moral concern; women’s concerns are either secondary, or entirely disregarded. Most, for example, accept that there is no difference between a newborn and a late term fetus… but this is to disregard the moral significance of the womb. The traditional debate sets fetus and mother as opponents, with mother as hostile toward her fetus.
Section III: The Feminist View of the Fetus
Fetuses are most often unrealistically conceived as moral beings separate and distinct from their mothers, required to satisfy some set of metaphysical criteria to be regarded as moral agents. But ‘personhood’ is a social, relational idea. And a fetus is only a person in lieu of its direct relation with its mother; it is only indirectly related to others. This puts the mother in a unique position of responsibility and privilege with respect to the fetus… she is the only human to help define the personhood of her developing child.
Section IV: Political Change
We must not simply provide a right to abortion, but the means by which to secure safe abortions that will be provided in a way that is sensitive to the health needs of the women concerned.
Feminists cannot accept legislative solutions like those in Canada that permit abortions when a doctor approves. How can a doctor be in a better position to decide than the woman?
The key to solving the abortion issue is providing women with meaningful control over their reproductive lives. This does not mean that Feminists are ‘pro-abortion’; they are instead in favour of any system that provides women with a meaningful set of choices. This is why Feminists also object to forced abortions or sterilization, whether these are state sanctioned or socially pressured.
The only way to remedy the oppression faced by women is to analyze all issues that bear directly upon them in their broader socio-cultural context.