Hello, dear friend, you can consult us at any time if you have any questions, add WeChat: zz-x2580
PHIL2617 Practical Ethics
Week 3 Abortion
Plan
• 1. Marquis on why abortion is immoral
• 2. Thomson in defence of abortion draws on
rights-theory
• 3. which natural rights? Justice and
beneficence
• 4. which acquired rights? Responsibility
• 5. aborting unplanned foetuses
Recap An objection to the
conservative position -“speciesism”
Species membership (like race, or sex) is not by itself morally relevant
Recap
An objection to the liberal position
• P1. Only killing a being that
is an actual psychological
person is prima facie
seriously immoral.
• P2. Infanticide does not
involve killing a being that is
an actual psychological
person.
• C. Hence, infanticide is not
prima facie seriously
immoral
• P1. Only killing a being that
is actual psychological
person is prima facie
seriously immoral.
• P2. Abortion does not
involve killing a being that is
an actual psychological
person.
• C. Hence, abortion is not
prima facie seriously
immoral
Liberal reply
• What factors might make infanticide (killing a
newborn infant) more morally wrong than
killing a foetus?
• Infanticide (but not abortion) is seriously
morally wrong all things considered because it
has adverse side-effects
• What do you think: Is this reply satisfactory?
unpalatable consequence?
Don Marquis, ‘Why Abortion is Immoral’
P1. What makes killing a normal human adult
prima facie seriously immoral is that it causes
the victim to lose a future like ours.
P2. Abortion causes a foetus to lose a future like
ours.
C. Therefore, abortion is prima facie seriously
immoral. (From P1 and P2)
‘future like ours’
• Is it the foetus or the (potential) person that has the
valuable future? (McInerney)
Best explanation?
Marquis’s reply to the ‘contraception’ objection
• “The wrong of killing is
primarily a wrong to the
individual who is killed;
at the time of
contraception there is
no individual to be
wronged.”
the “totipotency problem” (Singer)
Best explanation?
Rights-Theory
• Killing a person is wrong
because it violates the
person’s rights
Thomson’s (Qualified) Defence of Abortion
• Even if a foetus is a person from the
moment of conception, it does not
follow that it has a right to the continued
use of the mother’s body to maintain its
life, unless she has ‘given’ it this right
prelude
• “[G]rant that the fetus is a person from the moment of
conception. How does the argument go from here?
Something like this, I take it. Every person has a right to
life. So the fetus has a right to life. 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, and abortion may not be performed…It
sounds plausible. But now let me ask you to imagine
this”…
Thomson’s Violinist
“You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an
unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found
to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has
canvassed all available medical records and found that you alone have the
right blood type to help. They have kidnapped you, and last night the
violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys
can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The
director of the hospital now tells you, “Look, we’re sorry thee 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 now is plugged into you. To
unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it’s only for nine months.
By then he will have safely recovered from the ailment and can be safely
unplugged from you.” Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this
situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great
kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine
months, but nice years? Or longer still?...(Thomson, 1/106).
Claim-rights
X has a claim-right against Y that p
If and only if
Y owes a duty to X that p
IF
X owes a duty to Y that X performs action A
THEN
(i) typically X must perform A
(ii) X would owe Y compensation for not
performing A
which natural rights?
Natural rights
Against interference with,
or damage of, bodies or
property
• No natural rights to
someone’s help
Henry Fonda example
• But we must help when it
would be unkind not to
Justice VS Beneficence
• Justice requires
respecting people’s
rights
• Kindness requires
helping people at
reasonable cost
violinist analogy
• you must help the violinist
when the cost is so small it
would be unkind not to
• but the violinist does not
have a right to your help
On the assumption that a
foetus is a person…
• a pregnant woman must
help the foetus when the
cost is so small it would be
unkind not to
• but the foetus does not
have a right to the pregnant
woman’s help—unless she
has ‘given’ it this right…
acquired rights
• From responsibility for
(certain) voluntary
actions, e.g. promises
• Because X is responsible
for performing a certain
action A, Y has acquired
a right against X
(backward-looking)
an acquired right to help?
• Under what circumstances, if any, does a
foetus acquire a right to a pregnant woman’s
help?
IF
(i) an agent is responsible for performing an
action,
(ii) this action leads to a particular outcome, and
(iii) the agent foresaw this action might lead to
this outcome
THEN
the agent is responsible for this outcome
unplanned pregnancy
non-consensual
sex
consensual
unprotected sex
consensual
protected sex
“People Seeds” analogy
IF
(i) an agent took all reasonable precautions
against her action leading to an outcome, and
(ii) by taking these precautions she has reduced
the chance of the outcome to size S, and
(iii) she has a legitimate interest in performing
this action that justifies tacking a chance of size S
THEN
the agent is not responsible for this outcome
“people’s legitimate interest
in sex justifies taking an S
chance of pregnancy”
but how large is S?
