Abortion

Contents
● Stages of fetal development
● Methods of abortion
● Abortion : The Moral Question
● Argument that do not depend on the moral status of the fetus
● Argument that depend on the moral status of the fetus
● A defense of abortion
● Is abortion immoral?
Stages of fetal development:

● Day 1: —An ovum is penetrated by sperm

and one cell is formed that contains forty-
six chromosomes.
● Days 2–3: The fertilized ovum passes
through the fallopian tube as cell division
increases.
● Days 7–10: The blastocyst reaches the
uterus; it has now become a “ball of
cells.”
Stages of fetal development
● Week 2: The developing embryo becomes embedded in the uterine wall.
● Weeks 2–8: Organ systems and certain structural features such as arm and leg buds
begin and then continue to develop.
● Weeks 12–16: Quickening occurs, which means that the mother can begin to feel the
fetus’ movements.
● Weeks 20–26: Fetal brain development makes it possible that fetuses could feel pain.
● Weeks 20–28: The process of viability takes place, and the fetus is able to live apart
from its mother, depending on its size and lung development.
● Week 40: Birth.
Stages of fetal development
Methods of abortion
● Morning-after pill: This chemical compound, which the Food and Drug
Administration refers to as Plan B, is considered by some to be related to abortion
because it prevents the blastocyst from embedding in the uterine wall.
● RU486 (mifepristone): This prescription drug used in combination with other
prostaglandin drugs such as misoprostol induces uterine contractions and expulsion
of the embryo. It must be used within sixty-three days of a missed menstrual period.
● Uterine or vacuum aspiration: In this procedure, the cervix (the opening of the
uterus) is dilated, and the uterine contents are removed by suction tube.
Methods of abortion
● Dilation and curettage (D&C): This procedure also dilates the cervix so that the
uterus can be scraped with a spoon-shaped curette.
● Saline solution: A solution of salt and water is used to replace amniotic fluid and
thus effect a miscarriage.
● Prostaglandin drugs: These pharmaceuticals induce early labor and may be used in
combination with RU-486, as mentioned previously.
● Hysterotomy: This uncommon procedure is similar to a cesarean section but is used
for laterterm abortions.
● Dilation and extraction (D&X) or intact D&X or “partial birth abortion”: In this
uncommon second- and third-trimester procedure, forceps are used to deliver the
torso of the fetus, its skull is punctured and the cranial contents suctioned out, and
then delivery is completed.
ABORTION: THE MORAL QUESTION
● Although many people have argued that abortion is a private decision that ought not
be a matter of law, it is much more difficult to make the case that abortion is not a
moral matter at all. After all, abortion involves questions about rights, happiness, and
well-being, as well as the status and value of human life.
● The moral status of abortion also may have relevance for how we approach fetal
research. For example, promising studies have shown that embryonic stem cells
(taken from human blastocysts) as well as tissue from aborted fetuses might be used
for treatments for diseases such as Parkinson’s disease and to regenerate damaged
organs and tissues.
ABORTION: THE MORAL QUESTION
● We will consider two types of arguments both for and against abortion:
(1) arguments for which the moral status of the fetus is irrelevant, and
(2) arguments for which it is relevant.
● One might suppose that all arguments regarding abortion hinge on the moral status of
the fetus, but this is not the case.
● We look first at arguments that do not concern themselves with these questions. As
you examine these arguments, you may find that one or another seems more valid or
reasonable to you.
Argument that do not depend on the moral status of the fetus

Many arguments that focus on something other than the moral status of the fetus are consequentialist
in nature and broadly utilitarian. Arguments for abortion often cite the bad consequences that may
result from a continued pregnancy—for example, the loss of a job or other opportunities for the
pregnant woman, the suffering of the future child, the burden of caring for the child under difficult
circumstances, and so on. Some utilitarian arguments against abortion also cite the loss of potential
happiness and future social contributions of the being who is aborted.

According to act utilitarian reasoning, each case or action stands on its own, so to speak. Its own
consequences determine whether it is good or bad, better or worse than other alternatives.
Argument that do not depend on the moral status of the fetus

Some arguments about abortion do consider the rights of persons but still maintain that the moral
status of the fetus is irrelevant. It is irrelevant in the sense that whether or not we think of the fetus as
a person with full moral rights is not crucial for decisions about the morality of abortion. The article
on abortion by Judith Jarvis Thomson in this chapter presents such an argument. She does assume for
the purpose of argument that the fetus is a person from early on in pregnancy. But her conclusion is
that abortion is still justified, even if the fetus is a person with a right to life (and she assumes it is also
permissible if the fetus is not a person).46 This is why the argument does not turn on what we say
about the moral status of the fetus.
Argument that depend on the moral status of the fetus

Abortion arguments that emphasize the moral status of the fetus are concerned with a
broad range of ethical issues. They ask such questions as: Is the fetus a human being? A
person? Alive? Let us for the moment focus not on these terms and what they might mean,
but on an even more fundamental question, namely, what kind of value or moral status
does the developing fetus have? Does it have a different moral status in various stages of
development? If so, when does the status change, and why? (Further questions may
include how to weigh its value or rights in comparison to other values or the rights of
others.)
Argument that depend on the moral status of the fetus

Ontology means “theory of being,” so the ontological question asks what sort of being the
fetus is (whether it is merely a part of its mother or whether it is a unique and distinct
being and so on). The ontological question is connected to the moral question of the moral
status of the being. What we want to know is both what kind of a being the fetus is and
what sort of value that kind of being has.
 A Defence Of Abortion

 The agreement for this paper is that the fetus has

already become a human person well before birth.
 Her opinion: The fetus is not a person from the
moment of conception.
violinist
 Can you really say “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?”
 “Look, we’re sorry the 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 recovered from his
ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.”
The Extreme View
 The view that abortion is impermissible even to save the mother’s life.
 “A woman surely can defend her life against the threat to it posed by the unborn
child, even if doing so involves its deathJudith shows the extreme view is false
because 1-4 is false.
1. But as directly killing an innocent person is always and absolutely
impermissible, and abortion may not be performed.
2. As directly killing an innocent person is murder, and murder is always and absolutely
impermissible, an abortion may not be performed.
3. As one’s duty to refrain from directly killing an innocent person is more stringent
than one’s duty to keep a person from dying, an abortion may not be performed.
4. If one’s only options are directly killing an innocent person or letting a person die,
one must prefer letting the person die, and thus an abortion may not be performed.
Extreme View Continued
“No one may choose”
 Child is in the mother’s body.

 “One has a right to refuse to lay hands on people, even where justice

seems to require that somebody do so.”

“I will not act.”
 “Anyone in a position of authority, with the job of securing people’s

rights, both can and should.”

 A third party doesn’t have to accede to the mother’s request for

abortion to save her life, but he MAY.

...

“Everyone has a right to life, so the unborn person has a right to life.”
Does the child’s life outweigh the mothers? “Having a right to life does

not guarantee having either a right to be given the use of or a right to be

allowed continued use of another person’s body even if one needs it for life

itself.”
 Therefore, right to life does not serve opponents of abortion.
Does The Child Have The Right To The Mother’s Body?
 Rape= no/not unjust
 Consensual sex=responsible
 “If she voluntarily called it into existence, how can she now kill it, even in self
defense?”
 This goes case by case.Now the violinist only needs your body for one hour
◦ You ought to allow him
◦ Refuse – unjust towards him

Judith’s view is that this is not unjust, the violinist

has no right to use your kidneys
 Good Samaritan – no laws

 Judith- “I do argue that abortion is not impermissible, I

do not argue that it is always permissible”
 “While I am arguing that for the permissibility of
abortion in some cases, I am not arguing for the right to
secure death of the unborn child”
 Why Abortion is Immoral

Attacking a Straw Man

• The whole point behind philosophical argument (and argument in general) is
progress.
• If one does not address the strongest possible argument one can imagine,
then no progress is possible.
• Attacking a straw man is attacking a version of an argument that is easy to
knock over rather than the version of the argument that has some merit.
 False Dichotomies & Some false starts:

This is another way of misrepresenting an argument.

Example:
–Pompey: “If you’re not for me, you’re against me”
–Caesar: “If you’re not against me, you’re for me”
(Note that not ALL dichotomies are false, however)

As it happens, Marquis identifies a pair of arguments in the common abortion debate.

As it happens, neither argument is really any good.
 The personhood arguments & General Thesis

A fetus is human
humans have rights
abortion is impermissible

in this case what is unclear is what connection biology has to morality

A fetus is not a person
non-persons have no rights
abortion is permissible

in this case the concept of personhood is question-begging.

Marquis: One reason that we can plausibly give for the wrongness of killing adults (in most
cases) applies equally well to most cases of abortion.
 Value:

A fetus has a future like ours, so abortion is wrong for the same
reason that murder of innocent adults is, that is deprives the victim
of the value of its future.
This constitutes a prima facie reason for the wrongness of
abortion, but it is possible for other ethical principles to intervene.
 Marquis’s goal:

Marquis’s goal is to describe one (among many) accounts of why killing in

general is wrong and show that that principle applies to fetuses as well as adults.
This is to be done in such a way that does not make voluntary euthanasia wrong
(though it may be wrong for other reasons) and doesn’t make contraception
wrong and also doesn’t invoke religions or the status of fetuses as persons or
not.
Conclusion:
except in unusual circumstances, abortion is seriously wrong. Deprivation of an FLO
explains why killing adults and children is wrong. Abortion deprives fetuses of FLOs.
Therefore, abortion is wrong. This argument is based on an account of the
wrongness of killing that is a result of our considered judgment of the nature of the
misfortune of premature death. It accounts for why we regard killing as one of the
worst of crimes. It is superior to alternative accounts of the wrongness of killing that
are intended to provide insight into the ethics of abortion. This account of the
wrongness of killing is supported by the way it handles cases in which our moral
judgments are settled. This account has an analogue in the most plausible account of
the wrongness of causing animals to suffer. This account makes no appeal to religion.
Therefore, the FLO account shows that abortion, except in rare instances, is seriously
wrong.