This post isn't a pro- or anti-abortion piece (I'm not even going to reveal my personal beliefs in the hopes that it won't affect anyone's thoughts on this argument), but rather one where I try to clarify what, exactly, it is that pro-lifers and pro-choicers are, or should be, arguing about:
Most people tend to think the life v. choice debate boils down to whether or not you agree with the following argument:
P1: A fetus is an innocent person with a right to life.
P2: Abortion causes the death of a fetus.
C1: Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.
If you're pro-life, you think this argument is sound; if you're pro-choice, you deny P1--that a fetus has a right to life.
I thought this was pretty much right on, until I read what is likely the single most anthologized writing on the subject of abortion: A Defense of Abortion, by Judith Jarvis Thomson. Thomson, for the purposes of the paper, grants a fetus has a right to life, and then goes on to argue that that still doesn't make abortion immoral under all circumstances. This highly surprising conclusion is motivated by (what else, in moral philosophy!?) a counterexample:
A famous violinist suffers a serious attack, and falls into a coma. The venerable Society of Music Lovers determines that you and you only can save this brilliant musician by being hooked up to him on some kind of medical contraption for nine months. These music lovers break into your home while you are asleep, drug you, take you to the hospital, and hook you up to the violinist. You wake up and demand to be unhooked, but the Society offers this argument:
P1: The violinist is an innocent person with a right to life.
P2: Unhooking you from him would cause the death of the violinist.
C1: Therefore, unhooking you from the violinist is morally wrong.
The example, of course, is meant to be a corollary to a woman's becoming pregnant by rape. Needless to say, this paper has been attacked & defended to death, but that doesn't mean it's not worth talking about: do you think this argument works? Are you really in the same position as woman impregnated by rape? Does allowing abortion in the case of rape open the door to permitting it in other circumstances?
I'll refrain from offering any opinions here, not wanting to beceome too controversial too early, but still (to anyone who's actually reading this), what do you think?
3 comments:
From an evolutionary perspective, you are not in the same position as the woman impregnated by rape. Perhaps the most basic instinct of man is to reproduce replicas of him/herself. Being that this baby carries half of the mother's genes, can we really say that the rape victim and I are in the same position? I have no biological connection to this disgusting violinist hooked up to me, yet I have reason to want to save the baby carrying my DNA. That's all I'll say on this subject...too deep for me right now.
Although you say that you won't go into your personal views, I'd like to know what "The Moral Guy's" opinion on abortion is. No sarcasm intended.
Anonymous,
When I set up my blog I had decided that I would try to refrain from taking a position on the *really* hot button issues, like abortion, because I didn't want to have people ignore the arguments or examples I post.
I think that, at least for now, I'm going to continue to keep silent about my personal views, although if you read my future posts closely, you'll probably be able to get a good idea of what I believe, despite my best efforts. ;-)
--TMG
Post a Comment