Not ProChoice

1
Not Pro-Choice Not Pro-Life On the
Morality of Abortion ( related issues in famine
aid and animals and ethics)

• Nathan Nobis
• www.NathanNobis.com
• www.WhyThinkThat.com
• aphilosopher_at_gmail.com

2
Why did I pick the topic of abortion?

• It sometimes appears that the quality of our
  thought on a topic is inversely proportional to
  the intensity of our emotions concerning that
  topic.
• -- Fred Feldman, Confrontations With the Reaper
  A Philosophical Study of the Nature and Value of
  Death (Oxford, 1994).

3
Some common, low quality arguments about
abortion

• A pro-choicer might say
• A woman has the right to choose to do whatever
  she wants with her own body. Therefore, abortion
  is morally permissible.

• A pro-lifer might say
• Its always wrong to play God. Abortion is
  playing God. So abortion is wrong.

4
These arguments are awful!

• Does a woman have the right to choose to do
  whatever she wants with her own body?
• Obviously not! Simple, clear counterexamples
  show this.

• Is it wrong to play God? Depends on what you
  mean suppose playing God means influencing
  the size of the future population.
• Again, this is obviously not wrong.

5
We can do better. Philosophers like you can
help improve how people reason.

• My goal provide some basic logical skills to
  help us better think about abortion and help us
  help others think more carefully about the topic.
• These skills are helpful in thinking about other
  ethical topics also.

6
Three things to do to think more carefully about
ethics

• Avoid ambiguity.
• Words can have more than one meaning, so be clear
  on the exact meaning of what is being said. Ask,
  What do you mean by that word (term, idea)?
  (Why is this important?)
• Be precise.
• Is what is said true (or false) of some things,
  all things? (If not all, what are the
  exceptions?). Existential and universal
  quantifiers are often missing. (Why is this
  important?)

7
Three things to do, from a logical point of view

• Think in terms of arguments, i.e., sets of
  reasons given in defense of various conclusions.
• Ask, Why think that? What reasons are there?
• Often a missing, unstated premise or claim needs
  to be added to get from that answer the offered
  reason to the conclusion. You need to find
  that and see if there are any counterexamples to
  it, i.e., exceptions which show it to be false.
• Are these reasons good reasons?

8
Suppose you asked, So what do you think about
abortion?

• Some common responses
• Im pro-choice. I think abortions are morally
  ok. Its not wrong for a woman to have an
  abortion.
• Im pro-life I am against abortion. I think
  abortion is wrong. It is not morally ok for
  women to have abortions.

9
Logical point recall precision

• What are these peoples views, exactly? The
  quantifiers alls and somes were missing.
• All abortions? Some abortions? Most abortions?
  Few abortions? Abortions except in some special
  circumstances? (Which?) All possible abortions?
• Always morally wrong (or right)? Never morally
  OK (or wrong)? Wrong (or right) except in
  special circumstances? Couldnt be wrong (or
  right)?

10
A response to these common, imprecise views

• No reason to assume at the outset that all
  abortions are morally equal or in the same moral
  category, i.e., that they all right or all wrong.
  
• Whys this? Because abortions affect a range of
  beings. Differences in these beings might make a
  difference to the morality of how they should be
  treated.

11
E.g., very early embryos fetuses
4- 5 weeks Embryo is the size of a raisin ..
embryo's tiny heart has begun beating. The neural
tube enlarges into three parts, soon to become a
very complex brain. The placenta begins
functioning. The spine and spinal cord grows
faster than the rest of the body at this stage
and give the appearance of a tail.
a fertilized egg, only thirty hours after
conception. Magnified here, it is no larger than
the head of a pin. Still rapidly dividing, the
developing embryo, is called a zygote at this
stage
12
And far later fetuses

• 24 weeks - Seen here at six months, the unborn
  child is covered with a fine, downy hair called
  lanugo. Its tender skin is protected by a waxy
  substance called vernix. Some of this substance
  may still be on the child's skin at birth at
  which time it will be quickly absorbed. The child
  practices breathing by inhaling amniotic fluid
  into developing lungs.
• (Pictures from WESTSIDE CRISIS PREGNANCY CENTER
• http//www.w-cpc.org/ I googled fetal
  development to find it.)

13
Any morally relevant differences among the range
of fetuses?

• Standard pro-choicer seems to say no, that
  any abortion affecting any fetus, at any stage,
  is morally permissible. No restrictions are
  morally justified.
• Standard pro-lifer seems to say no too any
  abortion affecting (almost?) any fetus, at any
  stage, is seriously morally wrong. Permitting
  (almost?) any abortions would be wrong.
• However, you might think that the issues are more
  subtle you might think that (empirical,
  scientific) facts about fetuses (and women and
  girls, too) makes a difference to the morality of
  an abortion.

14
(An aside a poor objection from anti-extremist
motivations.

• Whats wrong with those two positions as they
  were just characterized is that they are
  extreme. More moderate positions tend to be
  correct, when it comes to moral issues.
• Response No, extreme positions are sometimes
  right. You are an extremist about many things
  child abuse, rape, torture for fun, etc. You are
  against it all the time and you think any
  moderates are mistaken.)

15
Despite their differences, fetuses are human, so
abortion is wrong!

• Are all fetuses human? What do you mean?
• Recall precision meaning
• All biologically human fetuses are biologically
  human, thats for sure! Who would disagree?!
• But, as a matter of logic, how to you get from
  that true premise to either of these
  conclusions?
• All abortions are morally wrong, or even
• Some abortions are morally wrong.
• Need to add the missing premise(s)!

16
Is the missing premise (2) true or not?

• All biologically human fetuses are biologically
  human. True
• Anything that is biologically human is wrong to
  kill. (or, if X is biologically human, then it is
  wrong to kill X).
• Therefore, it is wrong to kill human fetuses.

17
Actually, we need to make (2) more precise. Is
it true now?

• All biologically human fetuses are biologically
  human. True
• Anything that is biologically human is always
  wrong to kill. (or, if X is biologically human,
  then it is always wrong to kill X).
• Therefore, it is always wrong to kill human
  fetuses.

18
Schema for arguments that premise (2) is false

• If it is true that anything that is biologically
  human is always wrong to kill, then ___X___ is
  also true.
• But ___X___ is not true.
• Therefore, it is not true that its always wrong
  to kill anything that is biologically human.
  (modus tollens)
• What are good candidates for X?

19
Since (2) is false, this argument against
abortion is not sound.

• If the premise was if X is biologically human,
  then its sometimes wrong to kill X then wed
  need more information to determine whether this
  was one of those cases.
• New argument Fetuses are alive. Its always
  wrong to kill anything living, so its wrong to
  kill fetuses. Any better?

20
Maybe human means something else, like
persons.

• People say, Fetuses are persons from the
  moment of conception.
• All fetuses are persons.
• All (innocent) persons are always wrong to kill.
  Are there exceptions, e.g. self-defense?
• Therefore, all fetuses are always wrong to kill,
  so abortion is wrong.

21
Premise (2) is questionable. But are any or all
fetuses persons?

• Is there a way to rationally answer this
  question, i.e., decide what persons are?
• I think there is. I think there is a way to make
  progress in deciding what terms, words mean or
  what their correct definitions are.
• The methodology make lists of things that are
  clearly an X, clearly not an X and things that
  were not clear about. We then develop a
  hypothesis that best explains the patterns in the
  list.

22
Building a definition of a person getting clear
on the concept
Clearly a person Not Clear Either Way Clearly
not a person

• Individuals like us here.
• who else?

• Rocks
• Old cars
• Livers, hearts
• cells, tissues
• Tables, chairs
• Plants
• decomposed human corpses
• what else?

• Fetuses (or else were just assuming that they
  are, or are not, persons)
• Some (or all?) non-human animals
• what / who else?

23
Does it make sense to say that the concept of
person applies to these fictional beings? Were
they to exist, would they be persons?
24
If God(s), angels, /or devils exist, are they
persons?
The (traditional, Western monotheistic) concept
of God is an immaterial person who has some
exceptional abilities and attributes, to say the
least. Same w/ Eastern religions
25
Might any of these beings be persons? Or are
they more like non-persons?
26
A rough, vague hypothesis all beings with a
personality, who are conscious, feeling, with
beliefs, desires, memories, a sense of the
future, ability to communicate, etc. are
persons.

• If this is definition is true, then
• Being biologically human is not logically
  necessary for personhood it is not logically
  sufficient either.
• If God exists, there is a person without a
  physical body. So it appears that having a body
  is not conceptually necessary to being a person.
• Personhood is a consequence of ones psychology
  or mental make-up.
• If this definition is false, then what are
  persons?! What other definition might work?

27
Are any fetuses persons, on this
characterization?

• Early to mid-term fetuses definitely are not. So
  the premise All fetuses are persons is false.
• Note dont get troubled ?! Dont think that
  weve established this
• if something is not a person, then there are
  never any moral constraints on how it can be
  treated.

28
Conclusions on personhood argument

• All fetuses are persons. False
• All (innocent) persons are always wrong to kill.
  False
• Therefore, all (innocent) fetuses are always
  wrong to kill, so abortion is wrong.
• The premises are false, so unsound.

29
Reply fetuses are potential persons!

• Reply to reply True, some fetuses could and
  would become persons. But, again, wed get to
  the sought conclusion only if this were true
• If something is a potential X, then X has the
  moral rights of an actual X now.
• X Parent? President? Tenured professor? Driver
  of a car? College graduate?

30
Potentiality revisited

• There are potential people out there in the
  future. Abortion prevents them from being
  brought into the world. It is wrong to prevent
  people from being brought into the world, so
  abortion is wrong.
• But birth control, abstinence and not-doing-
  what-you-can-to-reproduce-now do the same thing.
  Are those always wrong? ?
• Another idea If someone would naturally develop
  into something if left alone, then its wrong to
  prevent that from happening.

31
Conclusions on some common anti-abortion
arguments

• Arguments from the biological humanity and
  personhood of fetuses, as well as various
  (simple) arguments from potential all have false
  (sometimes unstated) premises. These arguments
  are all unsound.
• Self defense considerations might sometimes be
  relevant (if fetuses were persons). Ive said
  little about this.
• However, perhaps that there are other, strong
  anti-abortion arguments. Ideas?

32
Why pro-life is misleading the concern isnt
for all life, or even all conscious, sentient
life.
33
Indifference to human starvation and severe
poverty

• The Singer Solution to World Poverty, NY Times,
  September   5,   1999

34
Indifference to the deaths, and suffering, of
billions of animals.
35
A simple argument for ethical vegetarianism

• Its wrong to cause, and support, needless pain,
  suffering and death, especially when it is easy
  to do so.
• Buying dairy, meat and eggs supports causing
  needless pain, suffering and death.
• It is easy to not buy such products (and you
  others can benefit from not doing so)
• Therefore, you should not purchase meat, dairy
  and eggs.

36
Back to abortionSo should you be pro-choice?

• No, not as Ive characterized it, in terms of the
  view that all (possible) abortions are morally
  permissible.
• Some abortions might have features that make them
  morally problematic, perhaps quite seriously.
• Most obvious feature later fetuses can
  experience pain and suffer. Undeniably relevant.
  Peter Singer If a being is capable of
  suffering, there can be no justification for not
  taking that suffering into account.

37
Fetal Pain The Scientific Evidence

• Conservative estimates are at 18 weeks, but the
  consensus in the medical literature is that the
  capacity for a fetus to feel pain arises at about
  28-30 weeks. (David Benetar, A Pain in the
  Fetus Toward Ending Confusion About Fetal Pain,
  Bioethics, 15, 1, 2001, 55-76).

38
When are most abortions?

• Fortunately, nearly all are well before the 18th
  week. (4th month!).
• CDC data. (See recent article by Ken Himma in
  Faith and Philosophy for references).
• However, some abortions are, or at least could
  be, later. Raise serious moral concern.
• Pro-choicers seem to want to deny this and
  ignore the facts about the possibility of fetal
  pain ignoring something quite important.

39
Mitigating concerns

• Anesthesia.
• Concerns for the life (quality and quality) of
  the fetus or newborn.
• Concerns for the safety and well-being of the
  mother.
• However, some kind of truly unconditional
  pro-choice position seems indefensible.

40
Is the most actual abortions are morally OK, but
a few later abortions might not be position home
free?

• Not so easy. The failure of these arguments
  against abortion does not simply establish the
  permissibility of abortion.
• True, if theres no reason to think its wrong,
  then, of course, theres no reason to think its
  wrong, but maybe there are such reasons

41
Harder principles to evaluate

• Actions, including abortions (and not having
  abortions) affects the future. Which are
  permissible and which arent? Hard to tell, esp.
  in light of opportunity costs.
• If something is not a person, is not conscious,
  and cannot feel pain, then it is never wrong to
  kill or destroy it.
• Conclusions?? Much more to talk about!