Abortion and Moral Considerability

Noonan’s Argument

Why doesn’t Arthur agree with Aquinas?

For Aquinas the right to food is a natural right that everyone has. This would mean others have a moral obligation to respect that right. But this is a positive right that would require other people to DO something (not just refrain from doing something); i.e., to give food or money for food.

According to Arthur positive rights are not natural rights. The only natural rights are negative, like the right to property. (Others can respect these by NOT stealing or just by doing nothing.) Arthur claims that positive rights come about only through contracts or commitments. Hence, a child has a positive right to help not from strangers but from his/her parents because those parents made a commitment by having the child. Strangers are not obligated to satisfy the positive right to help that needy people have.

Rights and ObligationsPositive Rights

• Someone else has a positive obligation to respect that right

• Respecting the right requires doing something

• For Arthur, these are not natural rights.

• The right is “against” only people who have made a contract or commitment (e.g., parents of children)

Negative Rights

A right that can be respected by others just by doing nothing

E.g., a right not to be killed or stolen from (right to property)

Usually everyone has an obligation to respect a negative right

For Arthur these are the only natural rights; i.e., rights we have just by being human

Aquinas believes some positive rights are natural rights

Why doesn’t Arthur agree with Aquinas?

For Aquinas the right to food is a natural right that everyone has. This would mean others have a moral obligation to respect that right. But this is a positive right that would require other people to DO something (not just refrain from doing something); i.e., to give food or money for food.

According to Arthur positive rights are not natural rights. The only natural rights are negative, like the right to property. (Others can respect these by NOT stealing or just by doing nothing.) Arthur claims that positive rights come about only through contracts or commitments. Hence, a child has a positive right to help not from strangers but from his/her parents because those parents made a commitment by having the child. Strangers are not obligated to satisfy the positive right to help that needy people have.

Good Quiz Question

Taking into account both the article and the study guide on Noonan.

What is the central thesis of the Noonan essay?

State in one clear sentence. The words “thesis” and “Noonan” will NOT be part of this sentence.

Other Good Quiz or Test Questions

• What places to “draw the line” between human and non-human does Noonan reject? Name 2 of them and explain why Noonan rejects them.

• How is Noonan’s position on abortion different from the traditional Catholic position?

Central Question on Abortion

• When, if ever, is abortion morally permissible?

• Separate question: what should the law be?

• Slogans used: “pro-life,” “pro-choice”

• We can use “liberal” and “conservative” as shortcuts

• What is your position on central question and key reason for it?

Status of Fetus

• Clearly a central question, but not the only one.

• Central: much easier to justify abortion if fetus is (at extreme) like a fingernail even at 8 months or a full person at 2 days

• But abortion may be morally okay even if fetus a full person with right to life (Thomson)

• Abortion may be morally wrong even if fetus not a person but only a potential person

Moral Considerability

• If something is morally considerable, we have an obligation TO it for its own sake.

• We have obligations regarding or with respect to lots of things that are not morally considerable; e.g., another person’s watch.

• It’s only wrong for me to steal your watch because you care about it, but it still is not morally considerable.

Moral Considerability

Morally considerable

• Moral standing

• Obligations TO (for its own sake)

• Direct obligation

• Example: other people are surely morally considerable

Obligations “regarding” or “with respect to”

• Obligation regarding property is not obligation TO the property but to people

• An indirect obligation

• When others care, we have obligation regarding, but still not morally considerable

What Things Are Morally Considerable?

• Clear cases: persons (yes) and chairs (no).

• Animals like dogs and cats?

• Insects?

• Human cadavers?

• Future generations?

• Unique natural objects (e.g., Grand Canyon)?

• Anencephalic infants? Pre-embryos? Fetuses?

Moral Considerability and Fetus

If fetus is morally considerable, then:

• Obligation TO it for its own sake

• Not dependent on other people caring

If fetus is not morally considerable, then:

• May still have obligation regarding fetus because others (e.g., parents) care

• Obligation depends on others.

• Even if others care, still not morally considerable (by definition)

Better Approach: What Does Something Need to Have to Be Morally Considerable?

• If you were a space explorer, what quality would something need to have to count morally?

• What would be

– Necessary conditions

– Sufficient conditions

Requirement for Moral Considerability?

What are your candidates for moral considerability?

• ________________________________

• ________________________________

• ________________________________

• _______________________________

When Does Fetus Become Fully Morally Considerable? (“Human”)

• Sperm and egg cells• Conceptus (embryo, “pre-embryo”)• Implantation• Brain waves• Awareness of sensations (e.g., pain and pleasure); capacity

for experience• Heart beat• “Quickening”• Birth• Self-awareness• Fully developed rationality

Noonan’s Argument

• It is immoral to harm one’s “fellow man”

• It is immoral to harm one’s fellow man to the point of killing except in self-defense.

• The fetus is a human, a “fellow man”

• Therefore, it is immoral to kill a fetus except in self-defense; i.e., when the mother’s life is in danger.

The Probability Argument

• Not meant to be decisive. Just “buttressing”

• The greatest point of discontinuity in the probability of the fetus “fully developing”

• Why not “becoming human”?

• E.g., from sperm 1 in 200,000 to 4/5 chance at conception

Where NOT to Draw Line

• Viability

– What is Noonan’s “reduction to absurdity argument against viability?

– How might we criticize it?

• Sentiments of adults

Think about Warren’s (next essay’s) view on this exact point.

• Others