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 futurelike-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.