PHI 3250 Practical ethics: Is abortion morally wrong?

(http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/04/30/new-guidelines-help-pediatricians-diagnose-acid-reflux-in-infants/)

In most discussion of abortion, whatever they are, both pro-abortionist, such as Marry Ann Warren, J.J. Thomoson, and anti-abortionist, such as Don Marquis, must base on the basic argument: fetus is a person, killing a innocent person is morally wrong, thus abortion (as if Killing fetus) is morally wrong. Simply to see, this basic argument is anti-abortion. That is, before they argue, it is presuppose that  abortion is not morally right, even though pro-abortionists disagree it. Why? I think, this situation likes someone claim that we should suicide immediately. But, if someone really says so, I think, he must be lying. Because, if he really believes that, he would suicide, then, how a dead person claim that we should suicide immediately? This claim is self-defeating. Similarly, when abortion is discussed independent to the basic argument, it is also self-defeating. It is simple to know that abortion is not, at least, morally right; or more precise speaking, it is not a good. It is not very strong proof, but, I have some justification as show above, thus in this paper, is better to assume it is true.

Although abortion is not morally right, it does not mean that abortion must be morally wrong. In our moral intuition, some cases, which is called classical cases, abortion is morally acceptable. It means, abortion in some situation, is moral, or at least, not immorally wrong. Thus, “Is abortion morally wrong?”, this question is not a simply yes-no question. In fact, the question is asking: to what extent, abortion is moral? Therefore, in this paper, I try to analyze that why in classical cases, abortion is not morally wrong, and the reason to abortion of this classical cases can it be applied to usual cases, which mean, to what extent abortion is morally acceptable.

Part I

Before analyzing classical cases, I want to make some assumptions in this paper. First of all, as analyzing in introduction, it is self-defeating and  morally wrong if abort without reason.

Second, many challenges of the first premise of the basic argument: fetus is a person, by anti-abortionists, they give many criteria of person to justify their claim. However, I think, most of them fail. Most of criteria just only indicate that if x fulfill these conditions, then x is a person. Most of these conditions are whether a sufficient condition or necessary condition, for example, Marry Ann Warren in her “On the moral and legal status of abortion” gives out some criteria that are: consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, and presence of self-concepts, etc. They are at large to be sufficient conditions of being a person or having moral right. Moreover, because fetus is growing and becoming a person, to use the criteria that is used to define person is not very just to fetus. As if saying that water’s nature is liquid, melting ice is between liquid and solid, thus melting ice is not water. Argue fetus whether is a person or not is nonsense. However, it should be argue that when a melting ice becomes a water? Or back to our topic, when a fetus became a person? Thus the challenge is make more sense, but it is more difficult to have reasonable answer. As Li  Hon-lam mention in “Abortion and degree of personhood: understanding why the abortion problem (and animal rights problem) are irresolvable” this question just like to ask how many grains of sand will make a heap? Principle of bivalence does not apply to the concept of personhood, thus how can we find a clear-cut point that fetus become a person? So, I think, this problem is irresolvable. However, if we still need to argue that abortion is moral, we should better to give the much more stand to basic argument. Thus, we should assume fetus is a person after conception.

I suppose that someone may argue why the clear-cut point must be conception, but not be birth? However, in fact, I have already justify it. If the clear-cut point is birth, thus abortion must be moral, It is very clear, but our above analyze show that, at least, abortion is not morally right. Nevertheless, every point of fetus growing to be a person, can not be a clear-cut point, if do so, it is just due to chance or writer’s taste or believe. And I have to give the most strongest stand to the basic argument thus we should choose conception be a clear-cut point.

Part II

We are now beginning from analyze the classical cases, by what reason abortion is acceptable. There is three classical cases: where a fetus is grossly deformed; where a fetus endangers the life of the mother and where a fetus is caused by rape.

First, we analyze the cases of fetus deformed. In this paper, we should not discuss this case. Due to the assumption in part I, we assume fetus to be a person just because of to give a strongest stand to basic argument, we actually cannot know whether fetus is or not a person, even a deformed fetus is a person? Even though we assume fetus is a person, deformed fetus is not same as  a person who is handicap or mentally disables. By our moral intuition we are likely to said that handicap and mentally disable are still being person. But in the case of deformed fetus, we don’t know. If we assume deformed fetus is a person, abortion is actually morally wrong in this case, it will against our moral intuition. If deformed fetus is not a person, abortion is still acceptable in this case and does not make difference to our moral intuition. By consider what justification of two possible, we should ask: is our moral intuition cannot be against? Is moral intuition cannot make mistake? Actually, I don’t know and I am not pretend to know, however, I believe our moral intuition with reason. It may be another assumption in this paper. Now, back to our question, I think to consider deformed fetus be a non-person is much more reasonable. By definition, if x is deformed, than x become non-x. Thus deformed fetus is not a person and abortion is moral in this case. This analyzes may be a little bit trivial, however, it is indifferent to our moral intuition and with this reason, but another possible does not.

Imagine that your wife and a stranger would die in front of you, if you can just only save one of them, what should you do? It is a classical moral dilemma. If you save one of them, another would die. You as if kill either him or her, and you must be morally wrong whatever your choice is. However, I think, it actually is a pseudo-moral dilemma. Because, you can’t to save both, thus you haven’t got any responsibility to save both of them. But who would be saved? It is amoral to choose either him or her, however, I supposed to save your wife rather than the stranger due to moral intuition. Even by calculate, if the intrinsic value of your wife and the stranger are same, because you don’t know who the stranger is, and your wife is more important to you at this sense, you would save your wife rather than the stranger.

Someone may be claim that if the stranger is the more  important person in the world, may be his death cause the world war, then you ought not to save your wife. My reply is, you are right, if you know him. Nevertheless, in the case of abortion, it is impossible to know who the fetus is and how important of his being to the world. It is no time to allow you to ask fetus, who are you. Thus, the same result, you save your wife life by abortion.

The about analogy is show that where fetus endangers mother, is the third person moral to agree abortion. Then, seeing the next analogy. Imagine that you and someone would die one of both. You can save him, but you die. Or you let him die, and you can alive. The situation as the before analogy, also is a pseudo-moral dilemma. However, it is a little bit different, the problem is: is it means that you kill him? I suppose, the answer is negative. Because no one have a right to ask to giving other one’s life for his survival, thus, you have no responsibility to save him.

The third classical case is that where the fetus is caused by rape. I think it is difficult to prove or justify it is right. May be the reasonable claim is, as J.J. Thomoson’s violinist analogy showed in her paper “a defense of abortion”, fetus haven’t right to stay in mother body without mother’s permission.

Over all speaking, there have three reasons for acceptable abortion: where fetus is not a person, fetus is endanger mother life, and fetus has no right to stay in mother’s body without permission.

Part III

Could the above reason for acceptable abortion apply to the usual cases? First, it is impossible to know that fetus is a person, so it cannot apply to usual case. Second, in the usual cases it is hardly to said that fetus must endanger mother’s life in modern world. It have some risk, but very low, it cannot be a reason. The third one, also cannot be a reason to abortion in usual cases, it will be showed at the rest of paper.

Before pointing out the third reason cannot be apply to usual cases, I would like to make clearly that what is the meaning of usual cases. In most speaking, usual case can be divided to two situation. First, when woman has already take enough action to prevent pregnancy but she still have so. She unwanted to having, she wants to abortion. Second, she just unwanted to have without any reason or has taken any prevention.

Actually I have justified the later situation. It is self-defeating and against our moral intuition when abortion without reason. Even most of pro-abortionist disagrees it.

Let’s back to J.J Thomoson’s violinist analogy. It is true that violinist has no right to ask you to stay nine months, and for same reason it is no right for fetus stay in mother’s body with nine months. But, as Mary Ann Warren argue, it is different between rape case and usual case. In rape case, victim has no choice, and pressed to pregnancy. But in usual case, you are free to choose whether to have sexual intercourse or not and you know what would be happened after. Thus, you have responsibility to your action, but the victim does not.

Imagine that in gambling, you have do something, may be changed your card without knowing by others, to make sure that you have 99percent to win. However, very unlucky, you still lose. If everyone participated in gambling allow you to change the cards without discovery during gambling, is it reasonable to claim that you have to get back your money due to having 99 percent that probability to winning? It is same as the case of usual abortion, you have do something to have 99precent to prevent pregnancy, however, you still pregnant. Is it reasonable to claim that you have to get back your freedom by abortion just only because you have 99percent not to pregnant?

It may be challenged by someone that the analogy is not suitable for usual case of abortion, because we all have to make agreement before gambling that if someone lose, he lose whatever the reason is, but in abortion, we have not to make any agreement with fetus. However, this claim is not successful. First, in many ways, for example, when the child born, without his agreement, he must be obey law. Why should he obey the law and morality? Second, image that when there have not morality and law, even society, if you in this situation, do you like to kill another person? And, also, why many animals didn’t kill the same kind?

It is because life is one of the practices. In life practice, alive is the necessary condition. The first question shows that life practice did not free to you. You have no choice if you want to alive. The second question shows that killing the same kind is self-defeating to life practice. Abortion, in the certain extent, is one of killing the same kind, is self- defeating, is morally wrong.

1997/11/8