Luis Duran Cornelio

Talking about abortion

Why dont we have a clear and strong answer about most of the moral issues that are

considered important in our XXI century? Why after centuries of discussing about moral values,

philosophy, and religion does it seem to us that the answers that we have been looking for are

not even close? Without a doubt we could say with Wittgenstein that even when all possible

scientific questions have been answered the problems of life remain completely untouched

Wittgenstein (1991). So, if we wont have an answer which satisfies everybody or which will not

answer with certainty our questions, why should we have to think or even more, try to analyze

the answer of someone else about a moral and controversial issue like abortion?

In the next few lines I summarize, in the first place, J. Thomsoms Essay; A defense of

Abortion, her thesis, arguments, and some of her examples. I will then argue why Thomsoms

thesis seems to me deeper and stronger than the other three essays that we have read in class

on abortion. Although I almost entirely agree with Thomsoms argument, in my conclusion, I

will try to argue that an opinion about abortion shouldnt be just an ethical, religious, political

or scientific discussion but a dialogue between different perspectives, too.

Thomsoms essay begins with the conservative premise that the fetus is a full moral

person with a right to live from conception. After that premise, that she doesnt believe,

Thomsom says that sometimes some pro-life groups accept that an abortion could be allowed

only in extreme cases, such as, when a woman becomes pregnant after a sexual assault. In a

sarcastic tone Thomsom says; If they (the fetuses) didnt come into existence because of rape;
[do] they have more of a right to live? Certainly, this is a weird contradiction. After this point

Thomsom with lead with one point of view about abortion: the extreme view; Abortion is

impermissible even to save the mothers life. As an ironic commentary the author informs us

that whether the mother and child should have an equal right to live, we should perhaps flip a

coin to decide who can live or not, but certainly she does not agree with that. This is only a

strategy to show us her point of view. Moreover, and continuing with the discussion about the

extreme view the author takes the four principal arguments that support that point of view:

(1) the fetus is an innocent person, (2) to kill an innocent person is murder and murder is

impermissible, (3) killing an innocent person is more stringent than ones duty to keep a person

from dying, and (4) between a very innocent person (the fetus) and a person, we should allow

the very innocent to live. After all these conservative arguments, which from an ethical view,

seems to look strong and not easy to destroy, Thomsom will say that all of the arguments are

false for three reasons: (1) if the mother has to die the innocent person can be considered as

a murderer, (2) it is not a murder to take away another life for self defense, and finally (3) we

should remember that the mothers body is the one who houses the fetus and not the contrary.

The house belongs to her: Thomsom says. Therefore, if there is something that all human

beings have, prior to claiming anything, it is their body. About that last point our body belongs

to us we should also see that that affirmation, whether is true or not, has ethical and moral

consequences in other controversial topics. Im referring to the euthanasia and suicide, but

thats not our discussion now, lets continue with Thomsoms arguments.

We just viewed briefly what Thomsom has to say about the extreme view of abortion,

but when the mothers life is not at risk, what does she say? The author gave us three
imaginary examples to explain her next step, (1) the violinist plugged into your kidneys without

you being asked about it, (2) The beautiful touching of Mr. Fondas cool and warm hand that

somebody needs to stay alive, and (3) the two children with a chocolate box, the chocolate box

belongs to one of the children. Those three examples are just trying to go to a single and main

point. The fact that all human beings have a right to life does not guarantee having a right

which allows you to continue using another persons body. The author says more specifically;

The rights to life consist not in the right not to be killed, but rather in the right not to be killed

unjustly. In a first look, this phrase seems to be strong and with lack of compassion, but

certainly Thomsom will argue that we are not called by law to be Good Samaritans which is

true. Indeed, the case of Kitty Genovese is just an example of that.

The last argument of Thomsoms that I want to bring up is her answer about whether or

not abortion should be ethically allowed when a woman voluntarily indulges in intercourse,

knowing the chances of getting pregnant. Doesnt her partial responsibility for its being there

itself gives to the fetus a right to use of her body? I first want to inform you, that that issue,

when a woman and a man have sex irresponsibility without thinking about the consequences,

makes me feel that in this case abortion shouldnt be performed. Nevertheless, Thomsom has

a simple but good answer to this moral standoff view. She argues that knowledge does not

necessarily mean intention. Moreover, she defends that we dont have any such special

responsibility for a person unless we have assumed it or taken the role. Nobody is compelled

by law to be a Good Samaritan, quotes Thomsom.

 After this short summary of Thomsoms essay A defense of abortion, lets comment on

some points which seem very important to me. First of all, why did I take Thomsoms essay

instead of the other three articles that I could have chosen? I didnt choose Can late Abortion

be ethically justified nor Budhist Approaches to Abortion because their standpoint - although

they were good, especially the first one - approaches abortion from a perspective that is not

easy to understand in Western culture. This Eastern perspective proclaims that the supremacy

of the society is more important than the existence of the singular person being alone by

himself. Because one of my main purposes for studying Philosophy it helps me approach society

and that society in my case is Western, I focused my attention to the first two articles written

by Marquis and Thomsom.

The reasons I didnt choose Marquisessay is because in my opinion Marquis Essay failed

in three areas. (1) Marquis main thesis is that abortion is immoral because it takes the life of a

being that will have a valuable future (like ours). On one hand we should reflect on the moral

consequences of this idea not only in an abortion perspective but in other moral issues too.

Before seeing those moral issues, lets focus in one main point of Marquis idea: What is the

meaning of a valuable future. In a briefly definition a valuable future means to me that a

human being could or will have the possibilities to use his reason and his physical abilities in his

adult life. Human beings in order to build their own life must take the minimum requirements

to be able to exist by themselves. From Marquis Idea we could justify the death penalty,

euthanasia, the murder of people on unconscious or with mental problems and so on. We could

justify all those crimes because all of those persons that I mentioned before have something in

common, they dont have, or lets say in another words, the society has decided that they dont
have a valuable future like us. Whether we are coherent with Marquis point of view, those

morals consequences are true. On the other hand if we take the argument of the value future

to an extreme point of view (2) a sperm and an ovum, also could have a value future like us.

Therefore from that analysis we could conclude that the use of contraceptives in a sexual

relation will be also inacceptable for morality. This is because we will be killing two cells which

together could have a value future like us. Marquis is not taking into account the spread of

sexually transmitted diseases like HIV and others more. (3) Finally, another weak point of

Marquis idea is what Thomsom argued in her essay: The rights to life consist not in the right

not to be killed, but rather in the right not to be killed unjustly. Marquis doesnt evaluate

either this point or the idea that the mother and the fetus dont have the same rights because

the body belongs to the mother.

Thomsoms essay seems to me very strong, logical and difficult to contradict. Indeed,

after reading her essay I have to admit that my thoughts and opinions on abortion have

changed radically. Nevertheless, we should remember that humankind is not just a logical,

scientific or structurally argumentative animal. Lets remember that we are also called by

nature to have compassion and to be Good Samaritans as well. It is true that we dont have to

be more person, more human or more Samaritan by law, but if not, then there wouldnt be too

much difference between the animal kingdom and humankind because they (animals) do not

have any rules which tell them that they have to be noble by law. That is my only criticism to

Thomsoms argument, abortion is not only about justice to live but compassion to give life.
 A moral answer about abortion wont be simple, easy and radical as some groups pro-

life and pro-choice think. A response on the abortion issue should be a dynamic and enrich

dialogue between different classes of our society. With the same force with which we have

been listening to the science in recent centuries, we should also listen to what religion,

philosophy and politic sciences together have to say about our moral controversies. That, in

fact, is the answer to the questions in the beginning of my essay. We dont have to be tired

trying to figure out the answers for our Moral Controversies because humankind is still alive

when we talk and dialogue from different perspectives. We are more humans, more persons

and less animals when we have the ability to think and talk at the same time without hurting

others.

In conclusion, I think that, the bad news here is that we dont have yet the specific

answer on abortion as a moral topic of our society. However, the good news is that we are

closer to the answer because the discussion is kept flowing and we are more capable to

dialogue more on abortion and other controversial issues than past time periods.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Tratactus Logico Philosophicus, - Dover Publications (1998)

Timothy Shanahan, Robin Wang, Reason and Insight: Western and Eastern Perspectives on the Pursuit of Moral
Wisdom (2nd edition) 1996