1 The Morality of Abortion Soazig Le Bihan - University of Montana

2Outline Introduction: What this chapter is about The Person Argument The question of Personhood Marquis: An alternative to the person argument Thomson: Is it always wrong to kill an innocent? Conclusion

3 Introduction: What is at stake? What this chapter is about Deepening our understanding of the arguments on both sides Two opposite values - The fetus’ ``right to life” - The mother’s ``right over her own body”

4Outline Introduction: What this chapter is about The Person Argument The question of Personhood Marquis: An alternative to the person argument Thomson: Is it always wrong to kill an innocent? Conclusion

5 The Person Argument The Person Argument: An important distinction - P1: The fetus is an innocent person - P2: It is wrong to kill an innocent person - CC: It is wrong to kill a fetus The argument is valid: is it sound? P1: what is a person? P2: is it always true? The argument is valid: is it sound? P1: what is a person? P2: is it always true?

6Outline Introduction: What this chapter is about The Person Argument The question of Personhood Marquis: An alternative to the person argument Thomson: Is it always wrong to kill an innocent? Conclusion

7 The question of Personhood The Problem The question of personhood is crucial: To assess the argument, we need: - Either sufficient conditions that the fetus satisfies - Or necessary conditions that the fetus does not satisfy What makes a person a person? Persons are what we don’t kill lightly -Class survey: what is ok to kill? -The alien thought experiment Is there any satisfactory criteria?

8 The question of Personhood Discussion Criteria often given by the opponents: Criteria often given by the defendants:  TOO BROAD 1.Being alive 2.Human shape 3.Human DNA 1.Intelligence 2.Communication skills 3.Moral agent Problem: Mentally handicapped and insane people Problem: 1.All animals 2.Robots 3.Any human cell  TOO NARROW

9 The question of Personhood Conclusion The question of personhood: Dead end? A proposal: Sentience as a necessary and sufficient conditions for not killing lightly  The absurdities are thus avoided Another option is to avoid the question of Personhood altogether: Marquis and Thomson Consequences: -Animals -Fetus after 20 th week

10Outline Introduction: What this chapter is about The Person Argument The question of Personhood Marquis: An alternative to the person argument Thomson: Is it always wrong to kill an innocent? Conclusion

11 Beyond the question of personhood Marquis: A future like ours The question of wrongful killing: criteria? - Against desire? - Interruption of valuable experience? Marquis’ proposal: An instance of killing is wrong when it deprives someone of a valuable future like ours.  general explanation of why we think it is wrong to kill  Marquis: abortion is wrong because it deprives the fetus of a valuable future like ours Consequences: -VAS ok -Wrong to kill humans, animals, and fetuses

12 Beyond the question of personhood Steinbock: Objections against Marquis What does it take to have a future?: Personal identity, that is, a way to link the individual now to the future Two theories of personal identity: 1.Physical Theory of identity (Phys-TI) 2.Psychological Theory of identity (Psy-TI)  As in the case of the Person Argument, it seems that there is no wrongful killing without sentience Dilemma: -If Phys-TI, absurdity -If Psy-TI, then sentience is necessary

13Outline Introduction: What this chapter is about The Person Argument The question of Personhood Marquis: An alternative to the person argument Thomson: Is it always wrong to kill an innocent? Conclusion

14 Thomson and The Violinist Deals with Premise 2 of the Person Argument: Is it always wrong to kill an innocent person? Thomson’s analogy: hooked up on a violinist without consent  Thomson’s point: the answer is not obvious  We have to distinguish between cases  Thomson’s point: the answer is not obvious  We have to distinguish between cases Thomson’s analogy: In which cases would you think it is ok to unhook yourself?

15 Thomson’s Analogy: Assessment In which cases does the analogy work – Warren? -Rape -Mother’s health endangered  These are analogies: can we find a rational basis for the argument? What about the other cases? – failure of birth control Jane English: performance and reception

16 An Important Distinction: Moral Obligations vs. Moral Favor Thomson’s main thesis: We are not morally obligated to help another in such circumstances, but it will be a great moral favor Moral Obligation Something that one must do on pain of immorality BLAME if not done Ex: keep your promise  Keeping the child in case of unwanted pregnancies is a moral favor, not a moral obligation Moral Favor Something that one can do above moral obligations PRAISE if done Ex: Britney Spears’ Touch and the Good Samaritan

17 Thomson: Conclusion Thomson’s main thesis on abortion: A continuum of cases, ranking from clear cases of great moral favors and moral indecency Beware of the slippery slope ! Moral favor Sacrifice Good Samaritan Moral Obligation Moral Indecency

18Outline Introduction: What this chapter is about The Person Argument The question of Personhood Marquis: An alternative to the person argument Thomson: Is it always wrong to kill an innocent? Conclusion

19 The Morality of Abortion Conclusion An important lesson for abortion: No straightforward answer but continuum of cases: - Clear cases in which abortion is wrong - Clear cases in which abortion is right - Continuum of cases in the middle A central notion for wrongful killing: sentience An important distinction for assessing our actions Moral favors vs. Moral Obligation