The Ethical Status of Abortion

David Sanson

2026-10-24

Preliminaries

Agenda

1. Preliminaries
2. The Basic Debate
3. Some Initial Arguments
4. Right to Life, Right to Womb, Consent
5. A Future Like Ours

Announcements

The Basic Debate

Agenda

1. Preliminaries
2. The Basic Debate
3. Some Initial Arguments
4. Right to Life, Right to Womb, Consent
5. A Future Like Ours

UNWANTED PREGNANCY

Example

Taylor just discovered that she is pregnant with Emm, a six-week-old embryo. The pregnancy resulted from consensual, casual sex. Taylor didn’t want to get pregnant, and her partner wore a condom, but they were aware that condoms sometimes break, which is what happened in this case. Both Taylor and Emm are healthy, and carrying out the pregnancy will not pose any threat to Taylor’s life. Even so, Taylor knows that going through with the pregnancy will be a huge burden physically, emotionally, and financially. So, Taylor decides to have an abortion, killing Emm.

‘Emm’ for Embryo. Note that giving something a name does not imply that it is a person: I can name a building or a boat.

Positions

Pro-life

It is immoral to abort Emm at six weeks old.

Pro-choice

It is morally permissible to abort Emm at six weeks old.

This is a narrower use of these labels than common: it just covers this one example case. Also, the labels themselves suggest arguments for each position. But we use them for the positions, not those arguments.

Morality and Legality

• The position defended in the chapter is that abortion is immoral but should not be illegal.
• What is immoral can come apart from what is illegal.
  • Examples?
• What is immoral can come apart from what should be illegal. Examples?
  • Examples?

• slavery. driving on the right-side of the road.
• adultery; lying to your friends; gossiping; buying a dog from a breeder instead of adopting

How Bad?

• Minor moral transgressions:
  • shoplifting a pack of gum.
• Serious moral transgressions:
  • killing someone.

• Small lies
• Cutting in line at the supermarket.
• Gossiping
• Beating someone up.
• Large scale fraud.
• Framing someone for a crime.
• Robbing a bank.

Some Initial Arguments

Agenda

1. Preliminaries
2. The Basic Debate
3. Some Initial Arguments
4. Right to Life, Right to Womb, Consent
5. A Future Like Ours

Wrong-Making Features

Pro-Life Strategy

identify a feature that six-week old embryos have that makes aborting them seriously immoral.

Pro-Choice Strategy

try to identify a feature that six-week old embryos lack, that explains why aborting them is not seriously immoral.

(Compare to the last chapter, where we tried to identify a morally relevant difference between Jasmine’s vigilante action that government taxation and imprisonment.)

Pro-Choice Argument Schema

Argument

• Y1. Emm isn’t Y.
• Y2. It’s seriously immoral to kill something only if it is Y.
• Y3. So it’s not seriously immoral to kill Emm.

Brainstorm: Possible values of Y?

Objections?

• rationality—infanticide
• self-sufficiency—infanticide
• unwanted—unwanted infants; unwanted adults.
• attachment—baby wraps; superglue.
• bodily-attachment—newborn with umbilical not yet cut. Conjoined twins.
• consciousness—sleeping or sedated adults.

Pro-Life Argument Schema

Argument

• X1. Emm is (or has) X.
• X2. It’s always seriously immoral to kill something that is (or has) X.
• X3. So it’s seriously immoral to kill Emm.

Brainstorm: Possible values of X?

Objections?

• alive—grass; weeds
• human DNA—skin cells; cancer cells
• beating heart—worms.
• potential to become a person: potential to become X does not imply rights of X (e.g., potential to become president does not imply rights of a president)

Right to Life, Right to Womb, Consent

Agenda

1. Preliminaries
2. The Basic Debate
3. Some Initial Arguments
4. Right to Life, Right to Womb, Consent
5. A Future Like Ours

The Right to Life Argument

Argument

• RL1. Emm has a right to life.
• RL2. If Emm has a right to life, then it is seriously immoral to deprive Emm of Taylor’s womb.
• RL3. So, it’s seriously immoral to deprive Emm of Taylor’s womb.

objection to RL1:

• Emm is potentially a person, but not a person. Only people have a right to life.

Why RL2?

Argument

• RL2. If Emm has a right to life, then it is seriously immoral to deprive Emm of Taylor’s womb.

Motivation:

Argument

• RQ1. If something (or someone) has a right to life, and it needs a certain something in order to survive, then it has a right to that thing.

Against RQ1

Argument

• RQ1. If something (or someone) has a right to life, and it needs a certain something in order to survive, then it has a right to that thing.

THE VIOLINIST

During his morning jog, Riley is kidnapped and drugged. When he comes to, he finds himself lying in a hospital bed, connected by some blood-filled tubes to a woman in a separate bed. His kidnappers explain that the woman, Maurissa, is a world-famous violinist. She was found unconscious, and they are trying to save her life. Maurissa is in need of a complete blood transfusion—already underway, using Riley’s blood—which will take nine months. Riley is told that if he unplugs himself from Maurissa before the transfusion is complete, she will die immediately. When the kidnappers leave the room, Riley sees his chance to escape. With a heavy heart, he unplugs himself and sneaks away, and Maurissa dies as expected.

THE ROCK

You have become completely obsessed with People Magazine’s 2016 Sexiest Man of the Year, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson. So obsessed, in fact, that the thought of living without him makes you physically ill. Deathly ill. At this point, the only thing that can save your life is the touch of The Rock’s cool hand on your fevered brow. The Rock is notified, and told that you will die if he does not come visit you in the next few days. But The Rock is a busy man. He sends his regrets. You die, as expected.

The Violinist Argument

Argument

• VA1. Maurissa has a right to life and needs Riley’s blood in order to survive.
• VA2. Maurissa does not have a right to Riley’s blood.
• VA3. So, someone who has a right to life does not thereby have a right to all the things they need in order to survive.

Possible disanalogy: Taylor had consensual sex, and she knew there was a risk of getting pregnant. Riley did not engage in any analogous consensual behavior that led to his kidnapping.

This suggests that RQ1 was not the right way to motivate RL2.

The Known Risk Argument

Argument

• KR1. Taylor freely chose to have sex and knew that this could lead to Emm using her womb.
• KR2. Whenever someone freely does something and knows that it could lead to certain consequences, one consents to those consequences.
• KR3. So, Taylor consented to Emm using her womb.
• KR4. If Taylor consented to Emm using her womb, then Emm has a right to Taylor’s womb.
• KR5. If Emm has a right to Taylor’s womb, then it is seriously immoral to deprive Emm of Taylor’s womb.
• KR6. So, it is seriously immoral to deprive Emm of Taylor’s womb.

• KR4: you can withdraw consent.
• KR2: that’s not a plausible theory of consent.

OPEN WINDOW

Astrid lives in a dangerous neighborhood with lots of hooligans. She has bars on her windows and keeps the windows closed and latched as an extra precaution. One hot summer day, she opens the windows to get some cool air, trusting that the bars will keep the hooligans out (though knowing that they are not 100% reliable). Unfortunately, the bars are defective. Some hooligans pull them off, climb through the window, plant themselves on her couch, and start playing her PlayStation.

PEOPLE SEEDS

Sandra lives in neighborhood with people-seeds. People-seeds drift about in the air like pollen, and if you open your windows, one may drift in and take root in your carpets or upholstery. You don’t want children, so you fix up your windows with fine mesh screens, the very best you can buy. As can happen, however, and on very, very rare occasions does happen, one of the screens is defective; and a seed drifts in and takes root.

A Future Like Ours

Agenda

1. Preliminaries
2. The Basic Debate
3. Some Initial Arguments
4. Right to Life, Right to Womb, Consent
5. A Future Like Ours

The Simple FLO Argument

Argument

• SF1. It is seriously immoral to kill something (or someone) if killing it deprives it of a future like ours.
• SF2. Killing Emm deprives Emm of a future like ours.
• SF3. So, it is seriously immoral to kill Emm.

Objections to SF1

HOPEFUL GONER

Guillermo has accidentally ingested a deadly poison and is in horrible, debilitating pain. He thinks he’ll get better, but he’s wrong: the poison is quickly spreading through his body and will kill him within a few hours. Nadja, who finds Guillermo terribly annoying and would like to see him dead as soon as possible, is attempting to inject Guillermo with a substance that will kill him instantly and painlessly. Guillermo resists and pleads for Nadja to stop. But Nadja gives Guillermo the injection, despite his protests, and Guillermo dies mere hours before the poison would have killed him anyway.

FLO expresses a sufficient, not a necessary, condition for killing to be immoral.

The Contraception Argument

Argument

• CC1. Killing sperm deprives them of a future like ours.
• CC2. If killing sperm deprives them of a future like ours, then: if SF1 is true, then it is seriously immoral to kill sperm.
• CC3. It isn’t seriously immoral to kill sperm.
• CC4. So, SF1 is false.

objection to CC1: sperm cells do not have a FLO. The sperm cell ceases to exist when it fertilizes an egg.

The Revised Contraception Argument

Argument

• CC1*. Killing sperm prevents the creation of a being with FLO.
• CC2*. If killing sperm prevents the creation of a being with FLO, then: if SF1 is true, then it is seriously immoral to kill sperm.
• CC3. It isn’t seriously immoral to kill sperm.
• CC4. So, SF1 is false.

CC2 is false. SF1 doesn’t say anything about this sort of case.

DFLO

Argument

• SF1*. It is seriously immoral to kill something (or someone) if killing it deprives it of a future like ours that it desires.

• sedated adults that have no desires.
• overwhelmed teen who doesn’t want to go on living (but this will pass in a week).

FLO-Overriding Factors

CRUEL GAME

M’Baku is preparing to detonate an atomic bomb in the heart of a densely populated city. He has kidnapped two innocent people, Okoye and Shuri, and he commands Okoye to kill Shuri. If she complies, he will release Okoye and won’t detonate the bomb. If she refuses, he will release both of them and detonate the bomb, killing hundreds of thousands of people. Okoye tries to find a way to stop the detonation without killing Shuri, but M’Baku has thought of everything. So, with a heavy heart, Okoye kills Shuri.

The Modified FLO Argument

Argument

• MF1. It is seriously immoral to kill something (or someone) if killing it deprives it of a future like ours and the killing does not involve any FLO-overriding factors.
• MF2. Killing Emm deprives Emm of a future like ours.
• MF3. Killing Emm does not involve any FLO-overriding factors.
• MF4. So, it is seriously immoral to kill Emm.

Question: what are plausible FLO-overriding factors?