Abortion ethics--help

[mlcampbell]

I need some help. In a contemporary ethics class I’m taking at college, we recently were assigned an article that attempted to philosophically justify abortion. One of the author’s first moves was to outline what she termed the extreme, anti-abortion stance. Not surprisingly, she chose Popes Pius XI and Pius XII as representatives of this view, quoting passages from the former’s Encyclical on Christian Marriage and the latter’s Address to the Italian Catholic Society of Midwives,:

“however much we may pity the mother whose health and even life is gravely imperiled in the performance of the duty alloted to her by nature, nevertheless what could ever be a suffiencent reason for excusing in any way the direct murder of the innocent?”

“Hence there is no man, no human authority, no science, no medical, eugenic, social, economic or moral ‘indication’ which can establish or grant a valid juridical ground for a direct deliberate disposition of an innocent human life, that is a disposition which looks to its destruction either as an end or as a menas to another end perhaps in itself not illiceit.”

We gather from these passages that abortion, according to the “extremist” (Catholic) view, is impermissible even if the mother will die. We have here St. Thomas Aquinas’ doctrine of double effect, where we distinguish between the intentions and the known consequences of a certain action: Even though the mother dies as a result of having the child, this is not the same as directly killing her; aborting the child, on the other hand, constitutes a direct and intentional termination of life. According to our instructor, St. Thomas Aquinas actually developed the ethical principle of double effect, because he was trying to justify killing in self-defense. Well, interestingly enough, the author of the article I’m reading actually takes this concept and applies it to abortion, asserting, in fact, that abortion, in cases where the mother’s life is at risk, is a situation of self-defense.

The author draws the conclusion that having the right to life does not guarantee having a right to be given the use of, or a right to be allowed continued use of, another person’s body; that life must be given, because the mother has a pior right to her body. So just because the mother ought to give her body to her baby, it doesn’t follow, in the author’s mind, that the baby has a right to the mother’s body.

So I guess what I’m asking for is some assistance in refuting this argument. We would all likely agree that killing a robber in self-defense, although unfortunate, is justified–so why is this not the case with abortion? Is it because the baby is unlike the robber in that it is innocent? And how would a Catholic like myself respond to the author’s point that the child does not have a right to the mother’s body? I apologize that this message is so long. I just wanted to be as specific as possible–after all this is a philosophy class I’m taking, and I need to be able to respond appropriately.

Thanks for your help.

 

[rrainer]

One fatal flaw in the Author’s argument is that killing a baby for the health of the mother is self-defense. The baby is innocent and not attacking the mother! Even if the pregnancy is the primary cause of the danger to the mother, which I beleive is rarely the case, the baby is still not intending to inflict harm on its’ mother. Therefore, the argument of self-defense is preposterous. Since God ultimately created and controls everything, then her right to self-defense must be exercised against God. This of course is ludicrous! The created has no right to kill its creator, even if it were possible.

Thank you.

 

[john_doran]

We would all likely agree that killing a robber in self-defense, although unfortunate, is justified–so why is this not the case with abortion?

well, it depends on how you define “abortion”: if it’s as something like “intentional killing of an unborn child”, then abortion can never be justified as self-defense, sincce the intent is not to defend the self, but to kill the fetus; if, on the other hand “abortion” means something more like “an action that causes the death of a fetus”, then abortion can be what the author is calling self-defense, since it is entirely possible to intend to save the life of the mother and accept the death of the fetus as a foreseen but unintended consequence of that action.

mlcampbell:

Is it because the baby is unlike the robber in that it is innocent?

no - per my above, it depends only on the intent of the action that causes the death of the child.

mlcampbell:

And how would a Catholic like myself respond to the author’s point that the child does not have a right to the mother’s body?

i would say that “rights” have got nothing to do with the issue at all.

that having been said, i would simply observe that whatever one might say about a right to the use of the mother’s body, a child certainly has a right to life, and it is this right which has primacy over the rights of others to commodities, including their bodies.

in the same way, even though i have a basic (property) “right” to the food i buy from the store, if i have more food than i require to keep me alive, but my neighbour will suffer serious injury or death if she doesn’t eat, then her right to life supercedes my right to my food in such a way that her taking the food is not actually an act of theft, since, in the circumstances, it is (morally) not “my” food.

 

[ateista]

i would say that “rights” have got nothing to do with the issue at all.

that having been said, i would simply observe that whatever one might say about a right to the use of the mother’s body, a child certainly has a right to life, and it is this right which has primacy over the rights of others to commodities, including their bodies.

in the same way, even though i have a basic (property) “right” to the food i buy from the store, if i have more food than i require to keep me alive, but my neighbour will suffer serious injury or death if she doesn’t eat, then her right to life supercedes my right to my food in such a way that her taking the food is not actually an act of theft, since, in the circumstances, it is (morally) not “my” food.

I agree with your reasoning as far as the specific example goes, but I don’t think it is a good analogy, since the food is not part of your body.

A better one would be your blood, or plasma. If someone has a need of a blood transfusion (otherwise they would die), does that need supercede your right to your bodily integrity? Do you “morally own” your body, or is it just a “commodity” to be harvested and shared against your will, just because someone else’s life depends on it?

If so, where does it end? Medically, we don’t need two kidneys. One is enough. If someone needs a kidney transplant, should you be forced to give up one? Medically, we don’t need our “whole” liver. Part of it could be sliced off, and given to someone in need. Can we be forced to give up part of our liver to save the life of someone else?

I don’t think so. The same applies to the woman and her fetus. Does she “morally own” her body?

 

[john_doran]

I agree with your reasoning as far as the specific example goes, but I don’t think it is a good analogy, since the food is not part of your body.

“being part of one’s body” isn’t morally relevent: “needing X to survive” is…

ateista:

A better one would be your blood, or plasma. If someone has a need of a blood transfusion (otherwise they would die), does that need supercede your right to your bodily integrity?

in the same kind of circumtances as the starving person taking food from your pantry, yes: the dying person’s right to life supercedes your right to blood that you yourself can live without.

but as i said originally, i do not believe in a rights-based morality, so i think that providing a definitive moral analysis in terms of rights is misguided.

ateista:

Do you “morally own” your body, or is it just a “commodity” to be harvested and shared against your will, just because someone else’s life depends on it?

if someone who is dying accosts you and takes your blood against your will, then while they may not have stolen your blood, they have most certainly committed a wrong against other apsects of your person.

ateista:

If so, where does it end? Medically, we don’t need two kidneys. One is enough. If someone needs a kidney transplant, should you be forced to give up one? Medically, we don’t need our “whole” liver. Part of it could be sliced off, and given to someone in need. Can we be forced to give up part of our liver to save the life of someone else?

facially, no, but would a blood-tax, for instance, be much different than any other kind of tax on goods imposed by the government?

it’s a vexed question, and the answer is difficult to see clearly.

ateista:

I don’t think so. The same applies to the woman and her fetus. Does she “morally own” her body?

again, the language of rights isn’t suitable for answering the question…

abortion is as much about a woman’s right to her body as infanticide or euthanasia is about others’ right to the pursuit of happiness, which is to say, not at all.

 

[ateista]

if someone who is dying accosts you and takes your blood against your will, then while they may not have stolen your blood, they have most certainly committed a wrong against other apsects of your person.

And that would be, what?

facially, no, but would a blood-tax, for instance, be much different than any other kind of tax on goods imposed by the government?

Yes, it sure would be. Taxing our “products” is way different than violating our bodily integrity. The products are inanimate objects.

By your reasoning, a starving person should have the moral right to cut off a piece of your living flesh to eat it and survive.

Rights and morals are products of a specific society. In our current, secular soceity such violation of one’s bodily integrity is not allowed. And I would really hate to see that change. It would lead to a “Brave New World”, where the slogan was: “after all, everyone belongs to everyone else”.

We are both individuals and social beings. There is a balance to maintain. How far should the “social” part be allowed to violate the “individual”? I agree that our “goods” can be sacrificed to help someone else to survive. But our bodies are not “goods”. Furthermore I would draw the line at the “survival” - not one inch further.

 

[puzzleannie]

the self-defense argument is a false analogy
if an intruder breaks into my home and holds me or my family at gunpoint or has a knife at my throat, I can use any means to repel him, even if I have to kill him.

If I invite someone into my home, even inadvertently, but he is there through some action of mine, he is not an intruder, he is a guest, and if through no fault or intention of his own he causes a threat to my life–perhaps he accidentally started a fire or innocently picked up a gun–that does not give me the right to shoot him, even if by killing him I have a chance to escape.

 

[hasikelee]

Well, why not just refute it with truth, strong sources and science?

It’s not surprising that such an old article was chosen, because even those who support abortion today have to accept that there is no medical reason to kill the pre-born human for the mother’s life.

With the advance of medical technology and skill, the issues originally associated with pregnancy, or the complications of diseases while pregnant can now be treated properly.

There are still rare cases of troublesome issues, but that leads to the science part. If the mother chose to become pregnant (a rather smart assumptiom seeing as how less than 1% of rapes result in conception) then she very well could have chosen a full exam of her body to ensure she didn’t have cancer, or tuberculosis, or any other host of diseases that have horrible symptoms regardless of pregnancy.

Furthermore, if she did conceive, then find out she had this horrible stage 3 cancer (I still can’t understand how such a situation happens in America ) then treating her symptoms is not an abortion, therefore the article is still not justified. This procedure of treating the woman with the risk of losing the baby is a morally allowable action.

On top of all that, there is also the issue of an abortion itself. Even radically pro-abortion scientists and medical specialists are coming to see that abortion has lasting and severe damage to the woman in every aspect. So if a woman’s life is endangered, or if she has troubling, inconvenient symptoms from a disease while she is pregnant, abortion itself may further endanger the mother.

I suggest digging deeper with science in mind. There are a few big, very accurate studies done by pro-abortion scientists who wanted to prove anti-abortion scientists wrong. Unfortunately, they came to even more chilling conclusion and had to bite their own agenda. These were international studies done in Western Europe and printed in medical journals. You really won’t find much science or truth in American media.

 

[john_doran]

And that would be, what?

a violation of your right to choose what to do with your body. a violation of your right to be free from physical harm. and so on.

ateista:

Yes, it sure would be. Taxing our “products” is way different than violating our bodily integrity. The products are inanimate objects.

what difference does that make?

ateista:

By your reasoning, a starving person should have the moral right to cut off a piece of your living flesh to eat it and survive.

that simply doesn’t follow, i’m afraid.

ateista:

Rights and morals are products of a specific society. In our current, secular soceity such violation of one’s bodily integrity is not allowed. And I would really hate to see that change. It would lead to a “Brave New World”, where the slogan was: “after all, everyone belongs to everyone else”.

morals are not culturally relative, though the rights that receive legal defense and constitutional entrenchment certainly are.

ateista:

We are both individuals and social beings. There is a balance to maintain. How far should the “social” part be allowed to violate the “individual”? I agree that our “goods” can be sacrificed to help someone else to survive. But our bodies are not “goods”. Furthermore I would draw the line at the “survival” - not one inch further.

i agree that a balance needs to be struck, and i also agree that our bodies are not commodities.

which is why i also think that the intentional killing of unborn children is always wrong: because it involves treating the body of a human person as a(n inconvenient) commodity.

 

[john_doran]

the self-defense argument is a false analogy
if an intruder breaks into my home and holds me or my family at gunpoint or has a knife at my throat, I can use any means to repel him, even if I have to kill him.

If I invite someone into my home, even inadvertently, but he is there through some action of mine, he is not an intruder, he is a guest, and if through no fault or intention of his own he causes a threat to my life–perhaps he accidentally started a fire or innocently picked up a gun–that does not give me the right to shoot him, even if by killing him I have a chance to escape.

if your example proves anything, it proves too much: namely that abortion in the case of rape is ok, since in that case the baby was an uninvited guest whose presence happens to be threatening the life of the homeowner.

look, we’re not talking about a causistry that allows people intentionally to terminate the lives of unborn children - we’re talking about the tragic circumstance in which either the mother or the baby (or both) will die, and one of the lives must be saved at the expense of the other…sometimes that means that a baby will die, and sometimes that a mother will die.

i would simply point out that a legitimate application of the the principle of double effect to these kinds of situations involves neither “abortion” if the baby dies, nor “murder” if the mother dies, since each of those terms refer to acts of*** intentional*** killing, whereas the deaths in the example, though perhaps foreseen, are unintended.

 

[hasikelee]

look, we’re not talking about a causistry that allows people intentionally to terminate the lives of unborn children - we’re talking about the tragic circumstance in which either the mother or the baby (or both) will die, and one of the lives must be saved at the expense of the other…sometimes that means that a baby will die, and sometimes that a mother will die.

Do you propose killing one or the other or treating one or the other, both or none? Your post isn’t very clear.

If you mean by treating the mother, the baby might die, that is not an abortion.

 

[ateista]

a violation of your right to choose what to do with your body. a violation of your right to be free from physical harm. and so on.

Excellent. I wholeheartedly agree.

what difference does that make?

You said it in the quote right above.

that simply doesn’t follow, i’m afraid.

Why not? If forcing to give some blood is ok to save a life, if forcing to give up a kidney is ok to save a life, how is that different from taking a pound of meat to save a life. We would be somewhat inconvenienced by the loss, but it would save a life?

morals are not culturally relative, though the rights that receive legal defense and constitutional entrenchment certainly are.

I think we shall disagree on the first part and agree on the second. In my vocabulary the word “moral” behavior is the written and unwritten rules of any given society in any specific period of time. Your definition may differ. Naturally, the norms of any given society are not necessarily the same as the norms of a different society. What is considered moral in one may be totally immoral in another.

i agree that a balance needs to be struck, and i also agree that our bodies are not commodities.

which is why i also think that the intentional killing of unborn children is always wrong: because it involves treating the body of a human person as a(n inconvenient) commodity.

You can’t have it both ways. If our body is truly ours, then someone else cannot take possession of it, for any reason whatsoever. I might agree explicitly to donate blood or even a kidney to save someone else’s life, but if I choose not to, I should not be forced to do it.

You consider a fetus a person, while I do not. In this case it is not relevant. There can be no question which entity “exploits” the body of whom. It is the fetus, which occupies the body of the woman, not the other way round. Therefore their relationship is not symmetrical.

 

[hasikelee]

You can’t have it both ways. If our body is truly ours, then someone else cannot take possession of it, for any reason whatsoever. I might agree explicitly to donate blood or even a kidney to save someone else’s life, but if I choose not to, I should not be forced to do it.

You consider a fetus a person, while I do not. In this case it is not relevant. There can be no question which entity “exploits” the body of whom. It is the fetus, which occupies the body of the woman, not the other way round. Therefore their relationship is not symmetrical.

Exploitation would be without permission, no?

 

[ateista]

Exploitation would be without permission, no?

Yes, that is how I view it.

 

[hasikelee]

Yes, that is how I view it.

But, conception occurs from rape less than 1% of the time, doesn’t it?

 

[ateista]

But, conception occurs from rape less than 1% of the time, doesn’t it?

Yes, but that has nothing to do with it. I am not talking about a rape, and I never did.

 

[john_doran]

You said it in the quote right above.

perhaps you misunderstood: what does the fact that (some of) our “products” are inanimate rather than animate have to do with their moral character?

ateista:

Why not? If forcing to give some blood is ok to save a life, if forcing to give up a kidney is ok to save a life, how is that different from taking a pound of meat to save a life. We would be somewhat inconvenienced by the loss, but it would save a life?

you suggested that the possible legitimacy of a blood-tax entailed the right of a starving individual to cut flesh from me. that is false.

A) legitimate government action does not entail the legitimacy of similar individual action, because

B) we are facially obliged to obey legitimately enacted government directives, but not facially obliged to obey the demands of individual citizens.

ateista:

I think we shall disagree on the first part and agree on the second. In my vocabulary the word “moral” behavior is the written and unwritten rules of any given society in any specific period of time. Your definition may differ. Naturally, the norms of any given society are not necessarily the same as the norms of a different society. What is considered moral in one may be totally immoral in another.

the fact that harming jews and gypsies and gays and catholics was considered “moral” in the nazi regime did not make it so. those who think murder is permissible, or rape, or genocide, or pedophilia, or torture, are wrong.

ateista:

You can’t have it both ways. If our body is truly ours, then someone else cannot take possession of it, for any reason whatsoever.

why not? what is the force of “truly” here?

and how do you square this statement with your cultural relativity? i mean, it would seem that the most you can say is that you would prefer it if other people didn’t expropriate what you think is “truly” yours…

ateista:

I might agree explicitly to donate blood or even a kidney to save someone else’s life, but if I choose not to, I should not be forced to do it.

why not?

ateista:

You consider a fetus a person, while I do not. In this case it is not relevant. There can be no question which entity “exploits” the body of whom. It is the fetus, which occupies the body of the woman, not the other way round. Therefore their relationship is not symmetrical.

the personhood of the fetus is the only morally relevant question, in the same way that the personhood of any organism i propose intentionally to kill is always the only relevant moral (and legal) question.

if i can’t legitimately end the life of my boss at work in order to make my life easier, then why should i be able to end the life of the unborn child in my womb to achieve the same end? because it is impermissible intentionally to kill persons (and sometimes even animals).

 

[ateista]

perhaps you misunderstood: what does the fact that (some of) our “products” are inanimate rather than animate have to do with their moral character?

Maybe I was unclear. The difference is that those “animate” objects are part of our body.

you suggested that the possible legitimacy of a blood-tax entailed the right of a starving individual to cut flesh from me. that is false.

A) legitimate government action does not entail the legitimacy of similar individual action, because

B) we are facially obliged to obey legitimately enacted government directives, but not facially obliged to obey the demands of individual citizens.

Yes, you are right. Though this brings up an interesting subject about the legitimacy of some possible government actions. Those could be explored in another thread. For now, any kind of taxation indicates that whatever is taxed is not really yours. A blood tax would be no exception. We would become the property of the government.

the fact that harming jews and gypsies and gays and catholics was considered “moral” in the nazi regime did not make it so. those who think murder is permissible, or rape, or genocide, or pedophilia, or torture, are wrong.

I am not sure that it was moral (according to my definition). I suspect that the majority of the people were simply scared into silence. Since you never gave me your definition of “moral”, I cannot reflect on that.

I think a better example would be cannibalism. In the very near past (and maybe even today) there were some tribes, which practised cannibalism. It is generally considered immoral in our societies, but they see nothing wrong with it.

why not? what is the force of “truly” here?

and how do you square this statement with your cultural relativity? i mean, it would seem that the most you can say is that you would prefer it if other people didn’t expropriate what you think is “truly” yours…

This is what you said before:
"john doran:

a violation of your right to choose what to do with your body. a violation of your right to be free from physical harm. and so on.

… and I wholeheartedly agreed with you.

the personhood of the fetus is the only morally relevant question, in the same way that the personhood of any organism i propose intentionally to kill is always the only relevant moral (and legal) question.

if i can’t legitimately end the life of my boss at work in order to make my life easier, then why should i be able to end the life of the unborn child in my womb to achieve the same end? because it is impermissible intentionally to kill persons (and sometimes even animals).

I would add the words “against their own wishes”. (Physician assisted suicide became quite accpetable in some societies, and its acceptance is spreading).

But even what you said is not universally true. Government executions, killing in self-defense and in war are usually considered exceptions.

My point was that as long as we are the sole proprietors of our bodies, no one can forcefully take part of it, even if that action would save someone else’s life, and that includes the life of a fetus. Yes, it could be changed, and I fervently hope that such a governmental action would be met with extreme resitance.

(Though I am old and cynical enough to know how easily the masses can be intimidated through scare tactics to give up quite fundamental rights. Current example is the unnecessary and ridiculous restrictions on air travel.)

 

[john_doran]

Maybe I was unclear. The difference is that those “animate” objects are part of our body.

sure, but i still don’t understand why that should make a moral difference.

is it because you subscribe to some kind of deep relation between morality and property rights, and perhaps also believe that ownership of the body is something like the most basic example of a(n inalienable) right to property?

ateista:

For now, any kind of taxation indicates that whatever is taxed is not really yours. A blood tax would be no exception. We would become the property of the government.

not on all theories of taxation, i’m afraid…

ateista:

I am not sure that it was moral (according to my definition). I suspect that the majority of the people were simply scared into silence. Since you never gave me your definition of “moral”, I cannot reflect on that.

by “moral”, i just mean the moral norms that apply to human action. like “one ought not intentionally to kill another person”.

ateista:

I think a better example would be cannibalism. In the very near past (and maybe even today) there were some tribes, which practised cannibalism. It is generally considered immoral in our societies, but they see nothing wrong with it.

well, it is (or was) either immoral or not; in that sense, the morality of cannibalism is objective.

ateista:

I would add the words “against their own wishes”. (Physician assisted suicide became quite accpetable in some societies, and its acceptance is spreading).

But even what you said is not universally true. Government executions, killing in self-defense and in war are usually considered exceptions.

and i would simply observe that whether or not those actions are exceptions is a question that has an answer, and which does not depend on what anyone thinks of the matter.

ateista:

My point was that as long as we are the sole proprietors of our bodies, no one can forcefully take part of it, even if that action would save someone else’s life, and that includes the life of a fetus. Yes, it could be changed, and I fervently hope that such a governmental action would be met with extreme resitance.

but do you fervently hope that it won’t change simply because you like things the way they are right now? or because you believe that, if things did change in the way you describe, we would then be part of an unjust regime?

ateista:

Though I am old and cynical enough to know how easily the masses can be intimidated through scare tactics to give up quite fundamental rights.

and i’m young and cynical enough…kind of sad, really.

in what sense are fundamental rights “fundamental”, though?

 

[hasikelee]

Yes, but that has nothing to do with it. I am not talking about a rape, and I never did.

What were you talking about?