A Rational Look at the Abortion Controversy Essay -- Exploratory Essay

A Rational Look at the Abortion Controversy One of the most hotly contested issues inside and outside of biomedical ethics today is abortion. The discussion received a new impetus at the release of the controversial abortion drug RU-486, "a pill to increase access to abortions and let women get them privately from their own doctor instead of facing shouting protesters at clinics."2 As is the case with all controversial issues, there are very passionate people on both sides of the fence. Unfortunately, a heated discussion on abortion can easily and quickly turn into a battle of rhetoric rather than a dialectic of reason. But the guiding light in such a discussion must always be reason, not rhetoric or other fallacies, for only reason can solve this issue and judge which side is correct. In this brief essay, I shall attempt to clear away some of the confusion present in typical abortion debates by cooling the rhetoric with reason enlightened by scientific facts. Specifically, I will examine two common pro-abortion arguments made by Mary Anne Warren and Judith Jarvis Thomson and demonstrate that they cannot stand up to rational scrutiny and therefore fail to justify abortion. I shall also use a "quadrilemma" argument similar to that of Peter Kreeft's to show that, aside from all specific argumentation, abortion cannot be morally justified. Before even beginning to discuss the issue of abortion, it is imperative to agree upon a starting point from which to reason. The fact that some people differ even about this very point tends to render the pro-abortion and the anti-abortion paradigms somewhat "incommensurable," and this is probably one major reason why people are tempted to arrive at different conclusions about this ... ...ilure is equal to an unwanted pregnancy due to rape is nothing short of ridiculous. The sexual act by nature tends towards pregnancy, i.e., that is the natural purpose of the sexual act, and any woman who engages in this act voluntarily, with or without contraception, thereby willingly opens herself to pregnancy. 20 Wilcox, "Nature as Demonic," 468. 21 Wilcox, "Nature as Demonic," 468f. 22 M. LeRoy Sprang and Mark G. Neerhof, "Rationale for Banning Abortions Late in Pregnancy," Journal of the American Medical Association 280, no. 8 (1998): 745. 23 Sprang and Neerhof, "Banning Abortions," 745. 24 Cf. Peter Kreeft, Making Choices: Practical Wisdom for Everyday Moral Decisions (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Publications, 1990), 119-21. 25 One might object that "abortion is morally neutral" is another possibility, but that which is morally neutral is morally permissible. A Rational Look at the Abortion Controversy Essay -- Exploratory Essay A Rational Look at the Abortion Controversy One of the most hotly contested issues inside and outside of biomedical ethics today is abortion. The discussion received a new impetus at the release of the controversial abortion drug RU-486, "a pill to increase access to abortions and let women get them privately from their own doctor instead of facing shouting protesters at clinics."2 As is the case with all controversial issues, there are very passionate people on both sides of the fence. Unfortunately, a heated discussion on abortion can easily and quickly turn into a battle of rhetoric rather than a dialectic of reason. But the guiding light in such a discussion must always be reason, not rhetoric or other fallacies, for only reason can solve this issue and judge which side is correct. In this brief essay, I shall attempt to clear away some of the confusion present in typical abortion debates by cooling the rhetoric with reason enlightened by scientific facts. Specifically, I will examine two common pro-abortion arguments made by Mary Anne Warren and Judith Jarvis Thomson and demonstrate that they cannot stand up to rational scrutiny and therefore fail to justify abortion. I shall also use a "quadrilemma" argument similar to that of Peter Kreeft's to show that, aside from all specific argumentation, abortion cannot be morally justified. Before even beginning to discuss the issue of abortion, it is imperative to agree upon a starting point from which to reason. The fact that some people differ even about this very point tends to render the pro-abortion and the anti-abortion paradigms somewhat "incommensurable," and this is probably one major reason why people are tempted to arrive at different conclusions about this ... ...ilure is equal to an unwanted pregnancy due to rape is nothing short of ridiculous. The sexual act by nature tends towards pregnancy, i.e., that is the natural purpose of the sexual act, and any woman who engages in this act voluntarily, with or without contraception, thereby willingly opens herself to pregnancy. 20 Wilcox, "Nature as Demonic," 468. 21 Wilcox, "Nature as Demonic," 468f. 22 M. LeRoy Sprang and Mark G. Neerhof, "Rationale for Banning Abortions Late in Pregnancy," Journal of the American Medical Association 280, no. 8 (1998): 745. 23 Sprang and Neerhof, "Banning Abortions," 745. 24 Cf. Peter Kreeft, Making Choices: Practical Wisdom for Everyday Moral Decisions (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Publications, 1990), 119-21. 25 One might object that "abortion is morally neutral" is another possibility, but that which is morally neutral is morally permissible.