Most opposition to abortion relies on the premise that the fetus is a human being, a person, from
the moment of conception. It is concluded that the fetus is, or any way that we had better say it
is, a person from the moment of conception. But this conclusion does not follow. Arguments of
this form are sometimes called 'slippery slope arguments' and it is dismaying that opponents of
abortion rely on them so heavily and uncritically.
I am inclined to think also that we shall probably have to agree that the fetus has already
become a human person well before birth. By the tenth week, it already has a face, arms, and
legs. On the other hand, I think that the premise is false, that the fetus is not a person from the
moment of conception. Opponents of abortion commonly spend most of their time establishing
that a fetus is a person, and hardly any time explaining the step from there to the
impermissibility of abortion. Many of those who defend abortion relies on the premise that the
fetus is not a person, but only a bit of tissue that will become a person at birth.
Let me ask you to imagine this: you wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back with
a famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment and the
society of music lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you
alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the
violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours so that your kidneys can be used to extract
poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, 'look
we're sorry the society of music lovers did this to you - we would never have permitted it if we
had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would
be to kill him. But never mind, it is only for nine months. In this case, you were kidnapped; you
didn't volunteer for the operation. They can say that persons have right to life only if they didn't
come into existence because of rape, or they can say that all persons have a right to life, but
that some have less of a right to life than others, in particular, that those who came into
existence because of rape have less. People that oppose abortion would, no matter what the
situation is, say the same that all persons have a right to life, the fetus is a person, and so on.
1.
Let us call the view that abortion is impermissible even to save the mother's life 'the extreme
view'. Suppose a woman has become pregnant, and now learns that she has a cardiac
condition such that she will die if she carries the baby to term. Both mother and baby have an
equal right to life. The most familiar argument here is the following: we are told that performing
the abortion would be directly killing the child, whereas doing nothing would not be killing the
mother, but only letting her die.
1. But as directly killing an innocent person is always and impossible, an abortion may not
be performed
2. As directly killing an innocent person is murder and murder is always impermissible, an
abortion may not be performed
3. As one's duty to refrain from directly killing an innocent person is more stringent than
one's duty to keep a person from dying, an abortion may not be performed.
4. If one's only options are directly killing an innocent person or letting a person die, one
must prefer letting the person die, and thus an abortion may not be performed.
the moment of conception. It is concluded that the fetus is, or any way that we had better say it
is, a person from the moment of conception. But this conclusion does not follow. Arguments of
this form are sometimes called 'slippery slope arguments' and it is dismaying that opponents of
abortion rely on them so heavily and uncritically.
I am inclined to think also that we shall probably have to agree that the fetus has already
become a human person well before birth. By the tenth week, it already has a face, arms, and
legs. On the other hand, I think that the premise is false, that the fetus is not a person from the
moment of conception. Opponents of abortion commonly spend most of their time establishing
that a fetus is a person, and hardly any time explaining the step from there to the
impermissibility of abortion. Many of those who defend abortion relies on the premise that the
fetus is not a person, but only a bit of tissue that will become a person at birth.
Let me ask you to imagine this: you wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back with
a famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment and the
society of music lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you
alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the
violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours so that your kidneys can be used to extract
poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, 'look
we're sorry the society of music lovers did this to you - we would never have permitted it if we
had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would
be to kill him. But never mind, it is only for nine months. In this case, you were kidnapped; you
didn't volunteer for the operation. They can say that persons have right to life only if they didn't
come into existence because of rape, or they can say that all persons have a right to life, but
that some have less of a right to life than others, in particular, that those who came into
existence because of rape have less. People that oppose abortion would, no matter what the
situation is, say the same that all persons have a right to life, the fetus is a person, and so on.
1.
Let us call the view that abortion is impermissible even to save the mother's life 'the extreme
view'. Suppose a woman has become pregnant, and now learns that she has a cardiac
condition such that she will die if she carries the baby to term. Both mother and baby have an
equal right to life. The most familiar argument here is the following: we are told that performing
the abortion would be directly killing the child, whereas doing nothing would not be killing the
mother, but only letting her die.
1. But as directly killing an innocent person is always and impossible, an abortion may not
be performed
2. As directly killing an innocent person is murder and murder is always impermissible, an
abortion may not be performed
3. As one's duty to refrain from directly killing an innocent person is more stringent than
one's duty to keep a person from dying, an abortion may not be performed.
4. If one's only options are directly killing an innocent person or letting a person die, one
must prefer letting the person die, and thus an abortion may not be performed.
