PP217 Lecture Notes - Lecture 7: Judith Jarvis Thomson, Sentience, Abortion Debate
Moral vs. Legal questions
•
Not everything immoral should be illegal
•
Regarding any action, ask these questions
1.
Is it moral? Is it the right thing to do, or at least not wrong? This is moral/
personal question
2.
Is it legal? This is the positive legal question. More for lawyers and
judges, question of fact rather than moral
3.
Should it be legal? This is the normative legal question, also called the
political question
Abortion
•
Premises and conclusion of the right-to-life argument. What is the
premise supposed to be? Sometimes anti-abortionists equate the claim
that a fetus has a right to life with the claim that it's wrong to kill
○
However killing certain kinds of beings is wrong in certain
circumstances
○
One way of putting the abortion debate then, is to ask whether
fetuses are the kind of thing that has moral standing
•
Kantian terminology- thing that bear rights- person
•
Moral-right-to-life argument
○
Premise 1: killing an innocent person, not in self-defence is wrong
○
Premise 2: abortion kills an innocent person (fetus)
○
Conclusion: therefore, abortion is wrong
•
Legal right-to-life argument
○
Premise 1: autonomy may be forcibly curtailed to prevent fatal
harm to another person
○
Premise 2: abortion fatally harms the fetus
○
Conclusion: therefore, a woman may be forcibly prevented from
aborting a pregnancy
•
the question is whether the premises are true, standard response is to
deny premise 2 - abortion kills no person because a fetus is not (yet) a
person
• What makes someone count as 'a person' ? Sumner suggests sentience-
the ability to experience suffering, others suggest more rigid criteria,
such as autonomy
○Others (often on religious grounds) hold than an embryo is a person
from the moment of conception
Bodily Integrity Argument
• A matter of autonomy
• Judith Jarvis Thomson says one cannot be forced to keep another person
alive, argument by analogy
Feminist Argument
•Premise 1-freedom to choose abortion is essential to gender equality
•Premise 2- lack of gender equality is a great moral wrong
•Conclusion- therefore, outlawing abortion is a great moral wrong
• Also point out that abortions continue, even when illegal
Judicial intervention
• Currently, Canadian law doesn't recognize fetuses as legal persons
• Case of Ms.G- established fetuses don't have legal rights. Government
wouldn't intervene with a pregnant woman abusing substances
• Paradox of pre-natal rights
1. No one is harmed by abortion; women may deny their children life
2. A child can (morally) complain of harm due to neglect that
happened before birth
3. Therefore a pregnant woman may not harm her child, but may deny
it life
• One possible resolution is to say that (1) misstates the issue- the woman
has the right to deny herself the chance to give birth
• The only problem that it is possible to cause delayed harm
Rights of the Fetus
• Browne and Sullivan argue there are 4 possible positions for the rights of
the fetus
1. The Middle Theory: fetus has no rights at conception, but gains full
rights at some point in its development (before birth)
2. The Gradualist Theory: right to life begins to phase in at some point
of fetal development, starting as a weal right to life and growing in
strength as the fetus develops
3. Conservative Theory: the fetus does not have any right to life from
the moment of conception
4. Liberal Theory: the fetus does not have any right to life at any time
during its development (pre-birth)
•Problems- middle and gradualists theory- no obvious point in fetal
development where one day the fetus has no rights, and the next day it
does
• Conservatives- committed to opposing contraception and supporting
celibacy
• Liberals-must also support infanticide since there is nothing that a late-
term fetus lacks that a newborn has
Abortion Arguments & Judicial Intervention
Saturday, June 30, 2018
9:13 AM
Document Summary
Moral vs. legal questions: not everything immoral should be illegal, regarding any action, ask these questions. More for lawyers and judges, question of fact rather than moral. This is the normative legal question, also called the political question. Abortion: premises and conclusion of the right-to-life argument. Sometimes anti-abortionists equate the claim that a fetus has a right to life with the claim that it"s wrong to kill. However killing certain kinds of beings is wrong in certain circumstances. One way of putting the abortion debate then, is to ask whether fetuses are the kind of thing that has moral standing: kantian terminology- thing that bear rights- person, moral-right-to-life argument. Premise 1: killing an innocent person, not in self-defence is wrong. Premise 2: abortion kills an innocent person (fetus) Conclusion: therefore, abortion is wrong: legal right-to-life argument. Premise 1: autonomy may be forcibly curtailed to prevent fatal harm to another person. Premise 2: abortion fatally harms the fetus.
