dr_who@umcp-cs.UUCP (07/24/83)
In a submission to net.women, I promised an explanation of why the standard
arguments about abortion were question-begging, and an indication of what
the arguments ought to address. This article fulfills that promise. I
intend to convince you that the only absurd statements on this issue are
those that dismiss opposing positions out of hand. In a way, this article
is a plea for patience with all sides. If you don't need to be convinced
that no side has a monopoly on plausibility, see the last three paragraphs.
An argument is question-begging if (i) it uses the conclusion, disguised, in
the premises; or (ii) it uses a premise at least as contentious as the
conclusion. EXAMPLE:
1. "It's a scientific fact that an individual human life begins at
conception; it is wrong to kill an (innocent) human being; therefore it
is wrong to kill beginning at the time of conception."
This argument's first premise is true IF "human" means a member of the
species Homo sapiens -- but (almost) everybody knows THAT. Unless the
argument rests on an ambiguity, though, the second premise will be just as
controversial as the conclusion. Pro-choice people ALREADY reject the idea
that it is wrong to kill any member of the species Homo sapiens -- an idea
which is so close to the conclusion that its use really begs the question.
Not all of the standard arguments are question-begging. Let us call an
argument *spurious* if not even its proponents would accept the obvious
implications of the principle behind the argument. EXAMPLE (taken from this
net):
2. "As to what constitutes a human being, that is a matter of personal
choice within the constraints of our legal system."
The principle suggested by this statement is that it OUGHT to be a matter of
personal choice within the constraints of our legal system. The factual
wording of the statement ("is") conceals its normative force (the author
approves of this fact, endorsing an "ought"). Now, once it is seen what
principle is suggested, the antiabortion side will drag out the Dred Scott
decision (which held that blacks were not persons). Since the constraints
of our legal system once left slaveholding as a "personal choice," there is
obviously something wrong with the principle. When the other side brings
up Dred Scott, they are right on target: this and many other arguments are
shown to be spurious.
At this point, the proponent of a spurious argument will invariably object,
"But I didn't mean it that way!" The proper reply is: then you shouldn't
have said it that way.
I contend that all the common arguments on abortion are question-begging,
spurious, or worse. I'll state what I consider the most common arguments,
and either briefly explain how they beg one of the questions at issue, or
give an obvious counterexample to the principle it implies. I criticize
more "pro-choice" than "pro-life" arguments, not because the latter are
better, but because there are less of them.
"Pro-life"
3. "Abortion erodes our morality/respect for life"
Question-begging, in that it assumes that our respect for adult human life
has no better grounds than humanity in the biological sense. If there ARE
relevant differences between adults and fetuses, we will differentiate our
moral attitudes toward adults vs. fetuses by noting these relevant
differences.
Both Sides
4. The slippery slope: (a)"if an infant is a human being, and a one-celled
zygote is not, where in the continuum of development does humanhood
appear?" (b)"If a zygote is important because of its potential, isn't
an unfertilized egg just as important -- where in the continuum of
potential does the right to life appear?"
When we put these "draw-the line" arguments side by side, we can see that
they are potentially (:-)) spurious: they seem to invoke the principle that
one should not draw lines in a continuum. We plainly have to treat children
differently than unfertilized eggs. It is no coup to point out that the
other side has a hard time justifying the place where they want to draw the
line, if your side faces similar difficulties! As CHALLENGES to provide
criteria to justify drawing lines, arguments (a) and (b) are good. But as
refutations of the other side, they fail completely.
5. We don't know, so ... (A)"we ought to favor the woman, because we KNOW
she's a person/has a soul/etc.", (B)"we ought to favor the fetus,
because life is much more important than a part of one's liberty."
Against (A), do we know that the woman is MORE OF A PERSON than the fetus?
Not if we're going to use an argument that begins "we don't know." And (A)
seems to trade on a greater acknowledgement of personhood for the woman.
Against (B), such a decision rule makes sense in the case of a 50-50
probability, but is probability an appropriate concept here? I think that
if "we don't know," we ought to keep investigating until we make up our
minds. (A) and (B) beg important questions.
6. Guilt by association: "pro-life" forces are fascists; "pro-choice"
forces are communists and secular humanists... Comparisons to Hitler,
etc., by both sides...
Guilt by association is not even an argument, but it deserves two comments.
First, changing your views on abortion would probably not change your stand
on gun control or the ERA. Second, even the worst scum of the earth (even
me!) might sometimes be right...
"Pro-Choice"
7. "Antiabortionists are trying to impose their moral beliefs on the rest
of us. But one can believe that something is immoral without wanting to
FORCE others not to do it. 'Pro-life' really means anti-choice."
When the proponents of this argument are pressed to define what beliefs are
moral beliefs, they usually say "personal" tastes regarding conduct. But
then they say that "personal" beliefs are those that concern only oneself,
that condemn victimless "crimes", etc. But this amounts to saying that the
only one affected by abortion is the woman herself. Wow, does THAT beg the
question!
If we use a better definition of morality -- one that includes justice and
rights and is essentially INTERpersonal -- we can see that "imposing morality"
is what law is all about. Only the most extreme libertarian anarchist could
truly be "pro-choice." The rest of us think that some moral decisions should
be coerced -- and the "pro-choice" forces are no exception. In arguing that
abortion should be federally funded, they are denying that "pro-life" people
have the right to choose whether to pay for abortions. It would seem that
whether imposing morality is wrong depends on whose ox is getting gored.
It amazes me that many pro-choice people actually think that their position
is morally neutral. "Abortion isn't being forced on anyone." But pro-lifers
disagree -- they think there IS someone who is the object of force in
abortion. And the idea that it is wrong for one group to impose its morality
on others is ITSELF a moral belief. If pro-lifers don't share this belief,
why should they have to abide by it?
8. "The issue [of when human life begins/whether abortion is wrong] is 100%
a religious one;" implicit premise: religious issues shouldn't be
subject to laws; "therefore, abortion shouldn't be subject to laws."
Spurious -- if when human life begins is a religious issue, then so is
whether it begins before age five, and likewise ten, twenty ... There is
just no way to avoid having the law say when it is that killing a Homo
sapiens first becomes illegal. Besides, abortion is NOT a purely religious
issue. PROOF: atheists (also, agnostics) disagree about abortion.
9. "It would be another Prohibition. You just don't legislate something
that so many people disagree about."
Question-begging. Prohibition or Abolition? Each side has its own
metaphor. Of course it is true that many would break an abortion law, but
so what? There are tens of millions of tax cheaters in the USA, but that
doesn't inspire me to revoke tax laws. Nor does the fact that the present
laws against murder seldom deter wife-killing mean that we should legalize
wife-killing, notwithstanding the undisputed facts that it would then be
far safer for the killer, and that the decision to kill one's wife is an
intensely difficult and personal one. (The last sentence is stolen from
"True Confessions of a One Issue Voter," National Review, May 25 1979. See
also the reply the conservative (!) columnist James J. Kilpatrick.)
Well, that's it. Those are the only arguments I commonly hear. I haven't
been very patient with them, but I AM being patient with the viewpoints
against which they are offered. Both of those viewpoints are plausible;
indeed, that is just what makes the abortion issue so intractable! The
problem with all the above arguments is that THEY DENY THIS, AND TRY TO
ESCAPE THE TOUGH PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTIONS.
Those questions are:
I) What kinds of beings ought we to care about, and how much; i.e., what
beings have "ethical standing" and to what degree?
Arguments about "humanity" or "personhood" just obscure or postpone this
question. The tired old pro-life arguments obscure it with a vengeance.
II) Given that something has ethical standing, what should we do for it,
and what must we *not* do *to* it?
For example, may we kill an innocent normal adult human being in order to
save ten others? Utilitarians say yes, Kant and many others say no.
III) Given that something has ethical standing and that one of the things
we should do for it is protect it, should we make the State
provide this protection?
If these questions are answered with an eye to the abortion issue, no
questions will be begged. Of course, the price paid for this productive
approach is an extreme difficulty in producing arguments! If anyone wants
to address these questions, I suggest we discuss I) in net.philosophy, III)
in net.politics, and II) in either net. If you want to AVOID these
questions, I beg you to spare me the trouble of showing that you won't
convince even the most open-minded and rational people of any view on
abortion.
--ready with my fire extinguisher,
Paul Torek, U of MD College Parknrh@inmet.UUCP (07/30/83)
#R:umcp-cs:-111600:inmet:7800011:000:285 inmet!nrh Jul 28 12:22:00 1983 Arrgh!! NO! Please get rid of the abortion arguments. Could we maybe create net.abortion? I'll post a note to net.news.group, but while abortion (in at least one facet) is a political issue, it tends to attract debate that makes the rest of net.politics look positively dignified.