Abortion

Noonan "An Almost Absolute Value in History"

1. All human beings have right to life

2. A conceptus is a human being <--

1. If something is potentially a human being, then it is a human being.

If something is potentially an F, then it is already an F.

2. If something is conceived of human parents, then it is human.

3. If something has a human genetic code, it is human.

"Alternative Distinctions" criteria that Noon rejects

4. If something (has human DNA and) is viable, it is human.

5. If something has had human experiences and memories,

then it is human.

6. If something is a member of human society (is "socially visible"),

then it is human.

7. If something elicits the right sort of emotional response

in adult humans, then it is human.

8. There is no fact of the matter as to whether or not

something is human.

The Probabilities Argument

What is the relevant difference between a spermatozoa or an ovum on the one hand, and a zygote on the other?

Sperm -- 1 / 2 million chance to develop into a baby.

Zygote --> 80% chance.

Big jump in probabilities -- marked by shift in moral worth of these things.

Thomson "A Defense of Abortion"

First paragraph:

A common argument for the claim "The fetus is a person" is no good.

The argument:

...the development of a human being from conception through birth into childhood is continuous. ...to draw a line, to choose a point in this development and say "before this point the thing is not a person, after this point it is a person" is to make an arbitrary choice, a choice for which, in the nature of things, no good reason can be given. ...the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. (TMI 387)

To make more precise:

x = a "thing," an entity (to be neutral) conceived of human parents

t1 = time of conception

t2 = some time during adulthood

1) x's development from t1 to t2 is continuous and gradual.

2) At t2 x is a person.

3) To pick a point between t1 and t2 at which x becomes a person

would be arbitrary.

The response:

Analogy/ counterexample: acorn= oak tree.

x = a "thing," an entity (to be neutral) offspring of oak

t1 = time of dropping from parent oak

t2 = some time when tree is full grown

1) x's development from t1 to t2 is continuous and gradual.

2) At t2 x is an oak tree.

3) To pick a point between t1 and t2 at which x becomes an oak tree would be arbitrary.

This is absurd. So the above argument is absurd as well.

The above arguments seem to be making the following assumption:

If we can't pick a point at which something acquired a characteristic, then it had that characteristic all along.

Counterexamples?

This principle does not seem to be generally true.

Insofar as the argument relies on this assumption, it is dubious.

Anti-abortion argument Thomson rejects:

1) A fetus is a person.

...

1) A fetus is a person

2) A fetus is innocent (has not committed any wrongs)

3) A fetus is an innocent person

4) Abortion is killing a fetus.

6) Killing an innocent person is always wrong.

Counter-example:

5') Unhooking yourself from the violinist is killing an innocent person.

6) Killing an innocent person is always wrong.