Answering a More Sophisticated Defense of Abortion – Part 13

I’ve finally gotten to my last post on David Boonin’s book, A Defense of Abortion. In the book’s final chapter, he responds to arguments that criticize abortion from a “non-rights” standpoint. Most abortion arguments deal with whether or not the fetus has a right to life, when the fetus acquires a right to life, and whether or not the fetus’s right to life includes a right to use another’s body. Some abortion arguments, however, are not related to “rights.” Thus, to be thorough, Boonin responds to the claims that (1) abortion violates the principle “do unto others as you’d have them do unto you,” (2) abortion on demand fosters a “culture of death,” (3) legalized abortion is actually contrary to the ideals of feminism, and (4) since we cannot be certain about the moral status of a fetus, we should err on the side of caution, by disallowing abortion. Boonin’s basic response to these is they cannot be successful without also appealing to the rights of the fetus. But at any rate, since these arguments are not ultimately decisive for most people, I will wrap things up with some comments on the book as a whole…

I originally read this book motivated by my belief that it is good thing to interact with those of differing viewpoints. And to that I still hold. I really do believe that if we are going to make any moral claim (e.g.,  “abortion is morally wrong”) then we should have sound reasons for it. And furthermore, we should subject our claims, and our reasons for those claims, to criticism and scrutiny. One really good way to do this is to interact with someone (by way of a book or a conversation) who holds to a completely different point of view. By doing so we can see the weaknesses of our own views, improve our arguments, better understand our ourselves and our opponents, etc.

That said, I am glad I read this book. Boonin is certainly an intelligent person, adept in philosophical ethics (or ethical philosophy?), with a great knack for exposing weaknesses in argumentation. For instance, I think Boonin has shown that we pro-lifers need to do a better job of explaining why invoking the biological category “human being” should make a moral difference. Simply stating that a fertilized egg is a genetically distinct human being does not convince everyone that abortion is wrong. We often just assume that since we can scientifically prove the humanness of a fertilized egg we have won the debate. We really do need to do a better job of arguing from “the biological category of human” to “the impermissibility of abortion,” explaining how we get from one to the other. Against Boonin however, since he was mainly concerned with showing flaws in pro-life arguments, he never bothered to discuss the fact that abortion violently disrupts a natural and biological process, namely the disruption of the womb’s function to preserve and nurture life. Could this have some negative ramifications worth discussing? Also, since Boonin was mainly concerned to argue about whether or not the fetus has “rights,” he spent very little time speaking about the responsibilities (if any) humans have toward fellow humans (including the unborn). When he does talk about human responsibilities toward fellow humans, he basically affirms that we ought not have to inconvenience ourselves too much for the well being of others. If every person took this stance, I wonder what our world would be like.

So, can I recommend Boonin’s book? Francis Beckwith, a notable abortion opponent who has written several books defending life, said this: “Although I am an abortion opponent, and thus I come to much different conclusions than does Professor Boonin, I found myself admiring his careful and rigorous method and his philosophical creativity, and learning much in the process.” (Go here for his entire critique: http://homepage.mac.com/francis.beckwith/Boonin.pdf). Boonin’s book is the most sophisticated and thorough defense of abortion that I know of.  At very least, his book will challenge you to think more critically and force you to re-examine why you think they way you do about abortion. But even if there is little to learn from him, we at very least need to be prepared to answer him, while treating him with the same respect that we want for the unborn. This series of posts has been an attempt to do that...