Peter Singer Abortion History After Roe v Wade
Peter Singer Abortion
History • After Roe v. Wade in 1973, abortion up to 6 th months was legal. • With IVF in 1979, we could freeze embryos. • Eventually, we could extract stem cells from discarded embryos, helping those with Parkinsons, Alzheimers, or diabetes. • Yet many objected that destroying embryos is also murder.
The Conservative Position • Singer begins with the conservative position, which proscribes all abortions. o It is wrong to kill an innocent human being o A human fetus in an innocent human being. o Therefore, it is wrong to kill a human fetus. • As Singer says, liberals typically challenge premise two, here.
Conservative Position Again • Yet as Singer notes, the liberal is in a tough position. • The conservative, he says. o The conservative points to a continuum between a fertilized egg and child and challenges the liberal to point to a point in this gradual process that marks a moral significant dividing line. • Either everyone, including fetuses and people, have a right to life, or no one does. • What is the liberal to do?
Four Liberal Abortion Limits • • Birth- yet, this can change, easily. Viability- how can dependence make a difference? Quickening- soul? Consciousness- consciousness is a mark of personhood, but liberals are wary here, since fetuses might be conscious fairly early.
Liberal Answers about Abortion • Singer notes how, when liberals respond like this, they lose this game. o The liberal search for a morally crucial dividing line between the fetus and newborn baby has failed to yield any event or stage of development that can bear the weight of separating those with no right to life, and those who actually have it. • Singer notes how liberals typically offer three arguments in response.
1. Restrictive Laws • Laws that restrict abortion just drive them underground. • And, such abortions are unsafe. • Abortion restrictions, thus, has too many bad effects to be good policy.
Conservative Response • But this argument about laws is not a moral argument, but only a practical one. • So we could agree with the argument, and still think abortion is wrong. • As such, this argument ignores the issue of murder. • Conservatives, thus, will just insist the law must be enforced better.
2. The Purview of the Law • Singer quotes Mill, who says that the only proper use of the law is to regulate harm. • So, Mill says o The only purpose for which power can be exercised over any active member of society, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. • When citizens act consensually, the law cannot interfere. • Therefore, abortion restrictions are beyond the legitimate use of the law.
Conservative Response • Yet as Singer notes, the argument fails. • In particular, the issue in question is whether the fetus can be harmed, and has rights • Assuming this principle does not extend to them is unfair. • In other words, liberals cannot beg the question by defining the fetus as not being harmed, since that is the very point at issue.
3. Feminism and Violins • J. J. C. Thompson insists that if we woke up and were told that a famous violinist, such as Sarah Chang, had been attached to us for nine months in order to survive, we could detach ourselves. • And we would do nothing wrong. • Similarly, Thompson says, abortion is not wrong. • Just by getting pregnant, then, we do not incur responsibility for another life.
People Seeds? • Thompson is saying that although fetuses are innocent, pregnant women have every right to refuse to honor their need to live. • In her article, she also mentions people seeds. • What if they were in the air? • If mother created the fetus by negligently leaving open a window, does this act saddle her with responsibility?
Response • Singer notes how Thompson is assuming a theory of rights in her argument. • Singer rejects this. o The utilitarian holds that, if the consequences of disconnecting myself are worse for the interests of everyone affected, I ought to remain connected. • So it would be wrong to refuse the violinist. • Still, in the case of abortion, what are the consequences of all affected?
The Conservative Position Again • Singer recalls how the conservative position has two premises and a conclusion o Killing innocent human beings is wrong o Fetuses are innocent human beings o Killing fetuses is wrong. • Singer denies the first premise, saying it is not wrong to kill the innocent.
Sentience • What about consciousness? • As Singer says, prior to eighteen weeks, the cerebral cortex is not sufficiently developed for synaptic connections. • So before then, there can be no pain, or feeling.
What about Potential Human Life? • Yet, will there not be pain, feeling, and consciousness soon after? • Singer responds that, when we must choose between the potential interest of fetuses or the actual characteristics of humans, real humans must always be preferred. • Why?
Prior or Total • Singer reminds us of prior or total versions of utilitarianism. • Women, then, might replace one future person with another. • Indeed, when women decide to have, say, only three children, they commit to increasing humans by three. • So they still maximize happiness.
The Uniqueness Argument • Paul Ramsay argues that each fetus forms a unique potential. • After conception, we are unique. • Since each embryo is unique, aborting them is murder. • Therefore, all abortion is murder.
Response • Singer responds that even if embryos are unique, they can be split. • If embryos can be cloned, uniqueness is preserved. • So, uniqueness does not matter.
Second Response • Why does uniqueness matter, anyway? • Even if, after conception, each fetus is unique, why should that make us care more about their futures, as such? • Just saying we should is not an argument.
Don Marquis and Abortion • Don Marquis argues that we owe potential people a future like ours. • So, abortion is wrong. • Importantly, this only applies if potential beings will be healthy.
More Future Beings? • Yet, why are we not then responsible for producing the most children we have? • More futures like ours, the better!
Duties to the Already Existing • Marquis responds with the prior view of utilitarianism, as such. • In other words, he says. o The wrongness of killing is primarily a wrong to the individual who is killed. At the time of contraception, there is no individual. • So, no conceived embryo, no problem.
Lee and George • Similarly, Patrick Lee and Robert George also argue against abortion. • Similar to Marquis, they hold that o The right to life must be based on what is true of the entity now, not what is true in the future. • Each embryo, they say, has a rational nature. • Such is our potential.
Potential Reason? • As Singer says, though, Lee and George admit embryos are not now rational. o What it has is the genetic coding that will, under favorable circumstances, lead it to develop a rational nature. • So, why is killing potential reason worse than killing an existing monkey? • Again, we need an argument!
Summary • Once conceived, the argument goes, potential beings deserves rights. o Uniqueness o Rational nature o Will have a future like ours, with all that this entails • Yet, these easily surmounted by the total view, and replacement. • And, they all beg the question.
- Slides: 26