An argument against elective abortion
December 2, 2010 at 6:08 am
(This post was last modified: December 5, 2010 at 8:36 am by Ryft.)
There are two tests an argument must satisfy in order to be persuasive: it must be valid and it must be sound. Validity is the primary or most important test because the truth of the premises has to logically guarantee the truth of the conclusion first, without which the truth of the premises is made irrelevant (by failing to justify the conclusion). This is why the other test, soundness, predicates itself on validity and is therefore the secondary test. In other words, an argument is valid whereby if the premises are true then the conclusion must be too, and it is sound whereby the argument is both valid and the premises actually are true. An argument that is valid and sound is therefore persuasive. [1] (Incidently, only arguments can be valid or invalid, not statements, and only statements can be true or false, not arguments. Validity pertains to reasoning, not propositions, while truth pertains to propositions, not reasoning.)
Having said that, I would like to present what appears to be a sound argument; i.e., it is logically valid and the premises are actually true. I have analyzed this argument inside and out and I cannot detect a single flaw in it. Although the conclusion is highly controversial, neither premise can be denied.
1. The deliberate killing of innocent humans is morally wrong.
2. Elective abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human.
3. Therefore, elective abortion is morally wrong.
Every term employed in this argument is carefully calculated and chosen. "Deliberate" is used in the sense of intentional, a conscious and informed act, premeditated (cf. accidental killing may be argued as not morally wrong). "Killing" obviously means to cause death, deprive of life, put to death. [2] "Innocent" was chosen to distinguish from cases where the deliberate killing of humans might not be morally wrong, such as soldiers on the battlefield (enemy combatants), the death penalty (convicted felons), shooting someone who breaks into your house (mortal threats), etc. "Human" should not be controversial, simply indicating any member of the species Homo sapiens. "Elective" is used to indicate abortions that are not medically necessary yet performed by the choice of the mother (cf. some abortions are medically necessary, e.g., an ectopic pregnancy). [3]
The argument is perfectly valid; i.e., if the premises are true then it is impossible for the conclusion to not be. [4] So the question is, "Are the premises actually true?" The second premise is a concrete matter of fact, semantically and genetically, which leaves us with the truth-value of the first premise. Is it not true? Who in their right mind would argue that it is false? That is, what scenario could such a person conceive under which the deliberate killing of innocent humans is not morally wrong? Some might suggest, "Abortion, of course," but since that is the very question it cannot be begged (petitio principii).
The only serious proposal I can think of is euthanasia, where the person exists in acute and incurable pain. While that is arguably a good exception, where the deliberate killing of such an innocent human could be argued as a moral good, it is not an effective undercutter to this argument for one significant reason: it would admit that over 99.9 percent of all elective abortions are morally wrong since (i) acute and incurable pain has never been cited in the literature as a reason given for performing an abortion, but more importantly, (ii) scientific evidence indicates that the neurological pathways that allow for the conscious perception of pain do not even function until the third trimester, [5] and according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute only 0.08 percent of abortions occur past 24 weeks and 92 percent of abortion providers will not perform the procedure in the third trimester. [6]
So the only real contention against the first premise still leaves the argument with a powerful punch: 99.9 percent of elective abortions are morally wrong. Those who are opposed to elective abortions can enjoy this argument, while those who support elective abortions are invited to attempt logically valid undercutters or defeaters to the argument.
Update: 5 Dec 2010
AGAINST THE FIRST PREMISE:
Euthanasia: My original post already addressed this point, yet it seems hardly anyone noticed. So let me argue the point even more clearly and plainly. Again, although euthanasia is arguably an exception to the first premise, elective abortions fail to qualify under that exception. First, insofar as "involuntary euthanasia" is taking someone's life against their will, it is simply a fancy way of saying murder (involving the intent to kill or the knowledge that one's actions would result in death), especially when it is performed on those who are healthy.
Second, insofar as "non-voluntary euthanasia" is taking the life of someone incapable of giving their informed consent, it is arguably a moral good (e.g., someone on life support whose condition makes it unlikely they will come off it), but not when it is performed on those who are healthy or those expected to come off life support after a few months in good health.
Third, insofar as "voluntary euthanasia" is taking the life of someone who has given their informed consent (e.g., someone suffering incurable pain or facing a painful death), it is arguably a moral good, but the unborn are unable to express their will thus cannot qualify for voluntary (or even involuntary) euthanasia.
Morality: The argument does not depend on any one moral theory. It suffices that the reader simply has one. The only people who reject the first premise completely, that is, who think the deliberate killing of innocent humans is not morally wrong, are those who reject morality as either meaningless or irrelevant. This does not speak to those who reject the first premise only partially, indicating certain exceptions. But again, any exceptions to the first premise that elective abortions do not qualify under (e.g., euthanasia) means the argument holds.
AGAINST THE SECOND PREMISE:
Human: It seems that some people accustomed to anti-abortion arguments are reading the second premise wrongly. Attention must be given to the fact that the argument is not predicated on humans as 'beings' or 'persons'; the one is a point of philosophy, the other is a point of law, but my argument is predicated on a point of science, that the unborn belong to the species Homo sapiens.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] An argument being persuasive does not guarantee that everyone will be persuaded by it, however. While a person might agree that the argument is logically valid and that the premises are indeed true, he or she may still reject the argument anyway. But that will be due to something being of more value to them than logic and truth, since they rejected the argument at the expense of both.
[2] "Life" is a property that distinguishes between that which has signaling and self-sustaining processes and that which does not, exhibiting such things as cellular organization, homeostasis, metabolism, growth, response to stimuli, etc. Something does not have life when either those biological functions have ceased (death) or when it never possessed those functions in the first place (inanimate).
[3] The vast majority of abortions performed are "not medically necessary," chosen for reasons such as being not ready, inadequate finances, would interfere with work or education, to avoid being single parent, relationship problems, not mature enough, etc., with only 7 percent of women citing health concerns for herself or the fetus, 1 percent citing rape, and less than half a percent citing incest. (See Finer, L. B. et al. (2005). Reasons U.S. women have abortions: quantitative and qualitative perspectives. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 37(3):110–118; Sihvo, S. et al. (2003). Women's life cycle and abortion decision in unintended pregnancies. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 57(8):601–605; Torres, A. & Forrest, J. D. (1988). Why do women have abortions? Family Planning Perspectives 20(4):169–176.)
[4] The argument breaks down as so:
1. The deliberate killing of innocent humans (x) is morally wrong (p).
2. Elective abortion (y) is the deliberate killing of an innocent human (x).
3. Therefore, elective abortion (y) is morally wrong (p).
In other words,
1. All x is p.
2. All y is x.
3. Therefore, all y is p.
[5] Lee, S. J., Ralston, H. J., Drey, E. A., Partridge, J. C., & Rosen, M. A. (2005). Fetal pain. A systematic multidisciplinary review of the evidence. Journal of the American Medical Association 294:947–954.
[6] Jones, R. K., Zolna, M. S., Henshaw, S. K., & Finer, L. B. (2008). Abortion in the United States: Incidence and access to services. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 40(1):6–16.
Having said that, I would like to present what appears to be a sound argument; i.e., it is logically valid and the premises are actually true. I have analyzed this argument inside and out and I cannot detect a single flaw in it. Although the conclusion is highly controversial, neither premise can be denied.
1. The deliberate killing of innocent humans is morally wrong.
2. Elective abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human.
3. Therefore, elective abortion is morally wrong.
Every term employed in this argument is carefully calculated and chosen. "Deliberate" is used in the sense of intentional, a conscious and informed act, premeditated (cf. accidental killing may be argued as not morally wrong). "Killing" obviously means to cause death, deprive of life, put to death. [2] "Innocent" was chosen to distinguish from cases where the deliberate killing of humans might not be morally wrong, such as soldiers on the battlefield (enemy combatants), the death penalty (convicted felons), shooting someone who breaks into your house (mortal threats), etc. "Human" should not be controversial, simply indicating any member of the species Homo sapiens. "Elective" is used to indicate abortions that are not medically necessary yet performed by the choice of the mother (cf. some abortions are medically necessary, e.g., an ectopic pregnancy). [3]
The argument is perfectly valid; i.e., if the premises are true then it is impossible for the conclusion to not be. [4] So the question is, "Are the premises actually true?" The second premise is a concrete matter of fact, semantically and genetically, which leaves us with the truth-value of the first premise. Is it not true? Who in their right mind would argue that it is false? That is, what scenario could such a person conceive under which the deliberate killing of innocent humans is not morally wrong? Some might suggest, "Abortion, of course," but since that is the very question it cannot be begged (petitio principii).
The only serious proposal I can think of is euthanasia, where the person exists in acute and incurable pain. While that is arguably a good exception, where the deliberate killing of such an innocent human could be argued as a moral good, it is not an effective undercutter to this argument for one significant reason: it would admit that over 99.9 percent of all elective abortions are morally wrong since (i) acute and incurable pain has never been cited in the literature as a reason given for performing an abortion, but more importantly, (ii) scientific evidence indicates that the neurological pathways that allow for the conscious perception of pain do not even function until the third trimester, [5] and according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute only 0.08 percent of abortions occur past 24 weeks and 92 percent of abortion providers will not perform the procedure in the third trimester. [6]
So the only real contention against the first premise still leaves the argument with a powerful punch: 99.9 percent of elective abortions are morally wrong. Those who are opposed to elective abortions can enjoy this argument, while those who support elective abortions are invited to attempt logically valid undercutters or defeaters to the argument.
Update: 5 Dec 2010
AGAINST THE FIRST PREMISE:
Euthanasia: My original post already addressed this point, yet it seems hardly anyone noticed. So let me argue the point even more clearly and plainly. Again, although euthanasia is arguably an exception to the first premise, elective abortions fail to qualify under that exception. First, insofar as "involuntary euthanasia" is taking someone's life against their will, it is simply a fancy way of saying murder (involving the intent to kill or the knowledge that one's actions would result in death), especially when it is performed on those who are healthy.
Second, insofar as "non-voluntary euthanasia" is taking the life of someone incapable of giving their informed consent, it is arguably a moral good (e.g., someone on life support whose condition makes it unlikely they will come off it), but not when it is performed on those who are healthy or those expected to come off life support after a few months in good health.
Third, insofar as "voluntary euthanasia" is taking the life of someone who has given their informed consent (e.g., someone suffering incurable pain or facing a painful death), it is arguably a moral good, but the unborn are unable to express their will thus cannot qualify for voluntary (or even involuntary) euthanasia.
Morality: The argument does not depend on any one moral theory. It suffices that the reader simply has one. The only people who reject the first premise completely, that is, who think the deliberate killing of innocent humans is not morally wrong, are those who reject morality as either meaningless or irrelevant. This does not speak to those who reject the first premise only partially, indicating certain exceptions. But again, any exceptions to the first premise that elective abortions do not qualify under (e.g., euthanasia) means the argument holds.
AGAINST THE SECOND PREMISE:
Human: It seems that some people accustomed to anti-abortion arguments are reading the second premise wrongly. Attention must be given to the fact that the argument is not predicated on humans as 'beings' or 'persons'; the one is a point of philosophy, the other is a point of law, but my argument is predicated on a point of science, that the unborn belong to the species Homo sapiens.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] An argument being persuasive does not guarantee that everyone will be persuaded by it, however. While a person might agree that the argument is logically valid and that the premises are indeed true, he or she may still reject the argument anyway. But that will be due to something being of more value to them than logic and truth, since they rejected the argument at the expense of both.
[2] "Life" is a property that distinguishes between that which has signaling and self-sustaining processes and that which does not, exhibiting such things as cellular organization, homeostasis, metabolism, growth, response to stimuli, etc. Something does not have life when either those biological functions have ceased (death) or when it never possessed those functions in the first place (inanimate).
[3] The vast majority of abortions performed are "not medically necessary," chosen for reasons such as being not ready, inadequate finances, would interfere with work or education, to avoid being single parent, relationship problems, not mature enough, etc., with only 7 percent of women citing health concerns for herself or the fetus, 1 percent citing rape, and less than half a percent citing incest. (See Finer, L. B. et al. (2005). Reasons U.S. women have abortions: quantitative and qualitative perspectives. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 37(3):110–118; Sihvo, S. et al. (2003). Women's life cycle and abortion decision in unintended pregnancies. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 57(8):601–605; Torres, A. & Forrest, J. D. (1988). Why do women have abortions? Family Planning Perspectives 20(4):169–176.)
[4] The argument breaks down as so:
1. The deliberate killing of innocent humans (x) is morally wrong (p).
2. Elective abortion (y) is the deliberate killing of an innocent human (x).
3. Therefore, elective abortion (y) is morally wrong (p).
In other words,
1. All x is p.
2. All y is x.
3. Therefore, all y is p.
[5] Lee, S. J., Ralston, H. J., Drey, E. A., Partridge, J. C., & Rosen, M. A. (2005). Fetal pain. A systematic multidisciplinary review of the evidence. Journal of the American Medical Association 294:947–954.
[6] Jones, R. K., Zolna, M. S., Henshaw, S. K., & Finer, L. B. (2008). Abortion in the United States: Incidence and access to services. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 40(1):6–16.
Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
