The Ethics of Abortion
Bioethical themes
Hippocratic oath in ancient Greece “I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause
abortion”.
SA choice on termination of pregnancy act (1996)
o Recognizes the right of persons bodily autonomy and the decision to have
children is fundamental to a woman’s health and wellbeing.
o Choice for first 12 weeks
o From 13th week need medical practitioner consultation (if pregnancy affects
mothers health etc. or social and economic environment)
o After 20th week allowed with multiple healthcare professional if mother or foetus’
life is endangered or foetus is severely malfunctioned.
Roe vs Wade (USA, 1973) – then overturned in 2022.
The morality of abortion is not reduceable to the legality of abortion.
- Immoral to cheat but not illegal
First level arguments for permissibility of abortion (pro-choice)
1. Consequentialists:
- Background claim: unplanned pregnancies are inevitable. (Rape, power
relations, cultural beliefs preventing contraception, not 100% effective)
- Deciding when and how many children is to have a foundational aspect on well-
being
- Unsafe illegal abortions
- So the impermissibility of abortion will have harmful consequence
2. Rights based: Right to bodily autonomy.
- Right to life health or pursuit of wellbeing
- Body is construed as a property right.
- South Africa’s choice on Termination of pregnancy act recognizes the
fundamental right the decision to have children affects all aspects of a woman’s
life
First level arguments against the permissibility of abortion (pro-life)
1. Right to life: arguments mentioned above are only convincing if foetus or
embryo does not have a right to life.
- The fact that there are bad consequences to abortion does not in itself show
restrictions on abortion are unjustified.
- Do we have the right to kill innocent people whom we find our property (right to
bodily autonomy - property right)
- It is equally unclear that I have any moral right to expel an innocent person from
my property when I know that doing so will result in his death” (Warren
1973:44)
Premise 1: human beings have a right to life. Equivocation of human being
(biological member of homo sapiens or a being with full moral status)
Premise 2: A human being comes into existence at conception.
Conclusion: Therefore, the embryo/foetus has a right to life
, o Equivocation: Warren only takes the biological sense of human being =
member of the species Homo Sapiens. Personhood is a being with moral status
– full fledged member of the moral community.
Second level arguments for the permissibility of abortion (pro-choice)
1. Personhood (Warren – not a person yet)
o Note: To claim that genetic humanity necessarily equates to full moral
status is spieciest, at least according to Singer!
o The question is not: “Is the foetus a biological human being”, but rather:
“What sort of entity, exactly, has the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness?” (Warren 1973: 52)
o Warrens 5 traits centre to concept of personhood
Consciousness (of objects and events external and/or internal to the
being) and in particular the capacity to feel pain
Reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively
complex problems)
Self-motivated activity (activity which is relatively independent of
either genetic or direct external control)
Capacity to communicate, by whatever means, messages of an
indefinite variety of types, that is, not just with an indefinite number
of possible contents, but on indefinitely many possible topics
The presence of self-concept
“[I]t is legitimate for the anti-abortionist to demand that the pro-choicer provide
an explanation of the connection between psychological criteria for being a
person and the wrongness of being killed” (Marquis 1989: 187)
Distinguishing between human beings and person. A fetus is indeed a human
being which is not yet a person
Why is life valuable
“The presence of self-concept” (Warren 1973: 55)
Locke: “a thinking intelligent being, that has reason and
reflection, and can consider itself, the same thinking thing, in
different times and places”
Capacity to value the future (and one’s future existence)
Implications of this argument: personhood develops gradually
“Thus, in the relevant respects, a fetus, even a fully developed one, is
considerably less personlike than is the average mature mammal, indeed the
average fish. And I think that a rational person must conclude that if the right to
life of a fetus is to be based upon its resemblance to a person, then it cannot be
said to have any more right to life than, let us say, a newborn guppy (which also
seems to be capable of feeling pain), and that a right of that magnitude could
never override a woman's right to obtain an abortion, at any stage
2. Right to life not equal to the right to requirements for existence (Thomson)
Premise 1: Human beings have a right to life
Premise 2: A human being comes into existence at conception
Conclusion: Therefore the embryo/foetus has a right to life
Thomson: even if we grant that the embryo/foetus has a right to life, it does
not follow that abortion is impermissible!
Premise 1: The embryo/foetus has a right to life
, Premise 2: Abortion violates the right to life of the embryo/foetus
Premise 3: Violating the right to life of others is morally impermissible
Conclusion: Therefore abortion is morally impermissible
Valid?
Sound?
Thomson is going to argue that abortion does not violate the right to life of the
embryo/foetus even if the life of the foetus is ended by abortion
For Thomson the right to life means the right to 1. Not be killed unjustly and 2.
Be provided with everything necessary for life.
Analogy 1: The unconscious violinist (Thomson)
You are kidnapped by strangers and wake up next to the violinist
have to share your kidneys with a violinist for 9 months or he will die
You alone can save him
He will be unconscious the whole time and you will be in bed next to him
After 9 months he will be unplugged and cured
What are your obligations in this situation?
Why is your refusal in this situation not considered murder?
His right to life does not obligate you to do whatever is required to keep him
alive, nor can anyone force you to do so.
A law requiring you to unwillingly stay in bed with the violinist whom you have
no obligation to would be unjust
A woman who was unwillingly pregnant has done nothing which obligates her to
make such an enormous sacrifice
Choice of pregnancy due to rape is an example of a case in which abortion is
permissible even if a fetus is considered a human being.
But crucial difference between rape case and normal case of unwanted
pregnancy
Analogy 2: The tiny house and the growing child
If you are in a tiny house with a growing child that will eventually crush you. You
should have the right to kill the child.
Third party intervention? While a third party can claim they won’t intervene
because they don’t want to choose, they cannot prevent you from doing it
yourself.
The house is your house, the child is your tenant.
Analogy 3: Smith and Jones
Smith and Jones share a coat and are both freezing. Who gets the coat if Smith owns
the coat.
Analogy 4:Henry Fonda
The right to life does not include the right to the bare minimum for existence unless
you are entitled to it
“[H]aving 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” (Thomson 1971: 56)
Thomson: “[T]he right to life consists not in the right not to be killed, but rather in the
right not to be killed unjustly. This … enable[s] us to square the fact that the
violinist has a right to life with the fact that you do not act unjustly toward him in
unplugging yourself, thereby killing him. For if you do not kill him unjustly, you do not
violate his right to life, and so it is no wonder you do him no injustice” (1971: 57)
