Let me first point out that I am not sure what a strong or weak argument constitutes for this issue aside from what I may find compelling from an emotional point of view. It may be a hard conversation to be involved in, not because of experience but because of a lack of it. Although we are approaching this from the discipline of philosophy the content material proves that this is a political argument, an argument/debate on how society should legislate for abortion. I am sure like others I may be lost for a starting point because there is for most people who do not know the trauma that is involved here a certain avoidance of the subject; the question of who is entitled to speak may be as important as what they have to say on the matter. I approach most subjects with a certain amount of bias and a certain amount of fallibility but with this issue I am willing to become better informed on the way, to form and hold a strong opinion at the end but still be completely wrong when challenged.
I will be discussing the views from all sides of an argument that has deep implications for society, I am sure they will have their merits, strong and weak points and ultimately I will conclude with my own thoughts. I will focus on evaluating the weaknesses of the arguments presented and attempt to link in some other theories that may be relevant.
Abortion
Abortion is the act of halting the further development of a foetus, in this respect there is a legitimate claim that life has already begun therefore the intervention of man is an action against a life. The opening statement does not dispute this fact but rather says that a foetus is not a person, this is an important distinction between what constitutes a person and how that is separable from the potential of a person in physical material. Monty Python sang ‘every sperm is sacred’ (Palin et al) as an intentionally ridiculous indication of how far back the potential for human life can be rewound and still hold true. It is this potential for personhood that the anti-abortion supporters see as being the important factor in the argument. Warren states that the definition of human in the argument is flawed in that the use of the term human represents two distinctly differing descriptions in the premises therefore negating the conclusion drawn from them (Warren, 2011); this is a valid criticism of the ambiguity she highlights but it solves little. I can’t see how it would help the undecided or turn the opposition away from their view even if it makes perfect sense logically. She also could be accused of ambiguity in her own definition of the moral community, critics could say that the foetus is a purely moral entity in its own right in that it has the potential for personhood but has not the potential for the immoral act. The main question here is when does a foetus stop being potential and start being a person? I don’t feel that Warren gives any answer to this but the British Medical Association does; it is at 24 weeks currently (BMA, 2013).
At a stretch (for me) there is the argument from Christianity (Graebe, 2000) that makes the case for inherited moral responsibility in the guise of original sin that is borne by all living humans, it is stated that all are in need of baptism for entry to heaven but aborted babies do not receive this, the clause of martyrdom provides a solution for this in the form of death by an act against creation (therefore god) but in this respect it provides also a justification for abortion as a viable and planned method of entry to the pearly gates; so why not abort all your pregnancies to guarantee that your children will reside in heaven and then repent later? This is thankfully a problematic argument in support of abortion.
Warrens argument has a flaw if we consider that the moral actor must be so by way of responsibility for action for we as a society attribute no moral responsibility to a the same entity that we consider to be a person (the child) outside of the decision making ability of a parent or guardian. One can contend that even though a child is agreed upon as being a physical person they are not morally a person because they haven’t yet the capacity for acting so; this leads us to conclude that they can be permissibly aborted between birth and such a time when they can be said to be moral. My child is 16 years old and I am not sure yet that I could say he is moral, I can certainly say that he is not morally responsible. Warren addresses this infanticide by proposing the circumstances in which there would be a justifiable killing of an already born individual but they rely on a successful prediction of the quality of life that a child would have, this is insufficient in that this cannot be known other than in the case of disability or certainty of a short problematic life; the evolutionary biologist and author Prof Richard Dawkins (AP, 2014) has been attacked for his postings on various social media sites for indicating his acceptance of this view. Psychologist and Harvard Professor Daniel Gilbert contends that disability does not equate to unhappiness in a measurable way and that it is merely in the imagination of more able-bodied individuals that they themselves would be unhappier if they were disabled that skews perceptions this way (Gilbert, 2007). An interesting aspect to the argument of definition is alluded to by Warren by discussing the possible futures of these considerations, with the near certainty that soon a machine will beat the Turing test (Turing, 1950) and maybe even successfully resolve John Searle’s Chinese Room thought experiment and new thoughts on personhood will emerge (Searle, 2009). Man-made synthetic life meeting all the current requirements of defining sentient and intelligent beings would create its own moral dilemmas.
A more attractive viewpoint is utility. A case by case study of the circumstances leading to terminating a potential life but this is also not without its opponents, from a religious point of view there is no room to wiggle and for pro-life supporters it is possibly damaging to their case to admit circumstances of exception. It is the view of Thompson (Thomson, 2011) that even if we accept the assertion that it is wrong to kill a person and that a foetus is in fact a person justifiable cases for termination still exist in that there may be a danger to an existent person by not doing so. I find this middle ground attractive but subjective, where is the line drawn between possible and actual? Historically all births have been a physical danger to the mother and every child has the potential to become a tyrant of unimaginable depravity (going back to my earlier point on knowing the future). Thompson highlights rape and health considerations to support her case and I agree that these circumstances do create exceptions but that still does not show the whole picture; I have no quotable reference for this but I have heard it said that pro-life campaigners pay little heed to the rights of an individual once born, Thompson address this by suggesting that the right to life is not a right to the sufficient resources to sustain life and also not a right to not be killed unjustly.
If we entirely approach the question at hand from the point of view of defining the person and the moral actor and we subsequently decide that the foetus is neither a moral actor nor a person then we are driven to conclude that abortion is permissible regardless of its underlying motivations; but this is also not a sufficient conclusion as it would, from a Kantian perspective, lead to a societal rule of acceptable action (willy-nilly abortion) that I imagine would be unpalatable for most people. In arguments on the nature of the person or the nature of the moral there is also the consideration that these concepts mediated as concrete lack truth at all and are merely constructed societal norms arising from the authority of influential individuals/groups as rationalisations of the preferred course of action when faced with exclusive choices. Nietzsche (Nietzsche, 2003) writes in his essay ‘Good and Evil’ of the changing perception of what is ‘good’ (morally valuable) as being sometimes a useful construct of the ruling classes in their desire to oppress the individual freedoms of the masses and at other times a compensatory measure employed by the oppressed/subordinated classes to view their situation as virtuous therefore sufficiently sufferable.
From the societal view there is the issue of treating a case that is entirely personal as one for the collective to decide upon, Will Self argues in the intelligence squared debate titled we’ve never had it so good (Self, 2014) that the collective ‘we’ removes the individual from their own experience and I find this a compelling argument against the idea that philosophy can answer personal questions with utility and duty based ethical systems. There may simply be territories of human interaction and societal norms where a philosophical approach is just not human enough; the prospective parents of an unwanted foetus could hardly turn to the writings of Kant or Mill for direction or comfort when dealing with the decision for or against termination.
Conclusion
For me there is a flaw in even approaching this subject, we may not have the right to be working towards a general rule even though this is what all the arguments and debates are ultimately trying to achieve, a politicisation of the subject. This issue is not categorical nor is it individual enough to be utilitarian and it is definitely more personal than societal. When general rules are formulated for society they meet society’s needs in a way that such interventions necessitate. I can understand how a neighbour or friend having a termination would affect me from the point of view of my moral opinion but it would not be in the same way as I would be affected by something shared such as a resource. Even though this is a highly politicised subject with all sides calling for laws I can’t see the formation of legislation for or against abortion being a solution. I leave this subject as just that, subjective, individual and beyond philosophy.
I have stated that there are flaws with each standpoint in this debate and have added material from the investigative process of meeting my own need to know more about it before writing this and while I feel better informed now I remain unconvinced that I have gained anything pertinent to add to the conversation. I am still willing to be wrong on this subject.
Paul Simon Wilson
Ref:
pinkfloydpsw's Blog 
Leave a comment