The absolutist prochoice position (APC) says that elective abortion should be accessible up until birth. The absolutist prolife position (APL) says that elective abortion should be prohibited at all stages of pregnancy post-conception because the killing of the embryo/fetus at all stages constitutes the murder of a human person. Most people find themselves somewhere between these two extremes and I am among them. I find the APC to be morally grotesque as it defends what is fundamentally infanticide. But I also object to the APL and in this article, I’m going to present a short critique of it. The argument is inspired by comments made by Peter Wehner in a recent episode of The Bulwark Podcast.
Moral reasoning is rooted in moral intuitions. Thus, as we reason morally we do so in accord with our intuitions. To be sure, our intuitions are fallible and occasionally arguments can be presented which require us to reject those intuitions. But in other cases, the intuitions themselves are stronger than the counter arguments. This argument appeals to those intuitions to argue against the APL.
The argument is in the form of modus tollens:
- If the APL is correct, then the abortion of a human blastocyst is morally equivalent to the murder of an infant.
- The abortion of a human blastocyst is not morally equivalent to the murder of an infant.
- Therefore the APL is not correct.
You may find the argument compelling out of the box. If so, well and good: my work is done here.
On the other hand, you may need some additional reason to accept the second premise. So the remainder of the article is devoted to those folk: why should we accept the second premise?
To answer that question, consider a scenario. To my (admittedly limited) knowledge, there is one primary option for ending a pregnancy at the blastocyst stage: the morning after pill. This pill is typically administered shortly after intercourse and functions in one of two ways: by preventing fertilization or by preventing implantation of the blastocyst in the uterine wall. For the APL, preventing implantation would not be murder, but intentionally preventing implantation would be.
(An aside: some people claim that human life begins at implantation rather than conception and thus they would not consider the morning after pill to function as an abortifacient. I believe, on the contrary, that human life begins at conception. But more to the point, my argument is directed at those who agree that life begins at conception. My argument is that those folk should nonetheless reject the APL.)
Now consider these two scenarios:
Scenario 1: Peggy has intercourse after which she goes to Dr. White and requests the morning after pill. Dr. White prescribes the pill and Peggy takes it, thereby preventing the implantation of a fertilized human blastocyst like the one pictured above.
Scenario 2: Sue gives birth to a baby boy. She goes to Dr. Black and requests that he euthanize the infant. Dr. Black administers a high dose of barbiturates resulting in the death of the infant.
According to APL, scenario 1 and scenario 2 describe morally equivalent actions. In addition, APL would appear to entail that both scenarios require legally equivalent remedies. That is, if Sue and Dr. Black are both guilty of murder and should be imprisoned for killing the baby boy, then Peggy and Dr. White are likewise guilty of murder and should be imprisoned for murdering the blastocyst.
Personally, I find it absurd to claim that taking the morning after pill with the intention of preventing implantation is morally equivalent to setting out to kill an infant. If you agree, then you have good reason to accept premise 2.
