Bioethics Abortion Flashcards
Abortion
fetus
- (a) the bringing forth of young, parturition (of birds) laying; (b) an instance of this, a birth, the bearing of young, breeding, conception, begetting.
- the bearing of fruit by plants;
- (a) that which is born, an offspring (usually of beast occasionally of human being, etc.), (b) the young (of an animal), the children (of a parent), (c) the young born at one time, brood, litter, (d) the young while still in the womb
- (a) Fruit of a plant, produce, crop. (b) an offshoot, branch, sucker, sapling, etc., produced by a plant. (c) (transf.) a product of the mind of imagination
-Oxford Latin Dictionaries.
offspring”, “bringing forth,” “hatching of young -Wikipedia and other sources
fetus
Depending whether it is noun or verb, fetus is basically the Latin for baby/offspring or labor when referring to humans.
Right, seven weeks
abortion
Abortion is an act that terminates a woman’s pregnancy due to the killing of the fetus, or “offspring.”
Right, diagram of surgical abortion
Some background information
Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in January 1973.
Abortion rate in the US is higher than in most other industrialized nations.
In the US, roughly 20% of pregnancies end in abortion.
Rates of abortion are highest among black women.
3% of abortions are performed because of mother’s health problems, 1% because of alleged rape/incest. Text claims 1% due to “fetal abnormalities.”
Text claims abortion itself was not condemned.
Text claims that “it was not the abortion itself was usually condemned but the violation of other social taboos.” This is not entirely accurate. Abortion was firmly and roundly condemned in American society, as was artificial birth control, all for moral reasons. (Notice there is no citation in the book for that statement, pg. 76.) That is not to say that abortion did not occur–it definitely did. However, abortion was not accepted in Christianity, and the vast majority of colonial and Americans were Christian. The Didache (an extremely important early Christian text from the first/second centuries), Basil the Great (fourth century), and many sources onward make it clear that Christianity has consistently opposed abortion.
“Religious Dogma”
Text pits theology or “religious dogma” against philosophy. This is a consistent theme in the text. What is theology? What is philosophy? Historically, they are not so distinct.
Philosophy: (Greek) philo = love + sophia = wisdom
Theology: (Greek) theo = God + logia = knowledge/science
Philosophy as distinct from theology?
Philosophy as utterly distinct from theology is a relatively recent phenomenon, with the emergence of materialistic atheism. As a movement in the West, this took on more prominence in the 16th century with the rationalists, but really picked up steam in the 20th century. This is a pretty good summary.
(Note: Materialism emerged in the East long before the West, but usually did so in the context of religious thinking, such as Hinduism and Buddhism.)
Theology is not just a Christian thing.
THEOLOGY “the science of God,” Latin theologia; from Greek: theo, God + -logia, knowledge
used by Stoics in 3rd century B.C. to describe a reasoned analysis of deity. Earlier uses were more naturalistic.
Plato’s Republic & Aristotle’s Metaphysics called Homer, Hesiod, and Orpheus theologians because they determined the genealogies and attributes of the gods.
With Christianity, theology defined by Augustine as “reasoning or discourse about the divinity.” Through the patristic age to the Schoolmen, this remained.. Peter Abelard (1079-1142) used term in its modern connotation. Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) defended theology as a science because it investigates the contents of belief by means of reason enlightened by faith (fides quaerens intellectum), in order to acquire a deeper understanding of revelation. He also distinguished theology proper from “natural theology” or what Gottfried Leibniz later called “theodicy,” which studies God as knowable by reason alone and independent of divine authority. Since the 13th century the term has been applied to the whole study of revealed truth and gradually replaced its rival synonyms.
Aquinas said theology is more certain than philosophy.
Why? Arguments based on human authority and faulty human reason are weaker than arguments based on divine revelation.
Link: Summary of St. Thomas Aquinas’ definition and purpose of theology
First law officially prohibiting abortion
Connecticut 1821
How does law come about? Why? What motivates new law?
Quickening
The “coming to life” of the child in the womb
When the mother first begins to feel movement, around sixteen weeks (varies considerably)
The baby always moves, but at some point the baby grows large enough that the mother can feel the movement.
Right, 18 weeks, a time when “quickening” often starts.
Link!
AMA condemned abortion 1859
“Unwarranted destruction of human life”
Called upon legislators to place legal restrictions.
Right, Horatio Storer, physician and AMA leader, 1830-1922. He sought to protect the unborn through legislation.
Writings of/information about Horatio Storer here: https://horatiostorer.net/
Early feminists
The original feminists (“first wave”) unequivocally opposed abortion as infanticide and demeaning to the mother as well as to all humanity.
This article contains a good summary of the history (partially opinion but the history is accurate).
Early feminists
They saw abortion as the fruit of larger problems of the oppression of women. Pro-life feminists want the need for abortion to be eliminated. “We want prevention, not merely punishment.” -Susan B. Anthony, 1869
Elizabeth Cady Stanton believed abortion to be degrading to women. Pro-life feminists continue to take this position.
“Pro-choice” position
Pro-choice position = abortion on-demand (for any reason or none, at any point in pregnancy)
Roe v. Wade changed legal definitions
Changed definition of personhood, saying an unborn human (commonly referred to as a “fetus”) is not a person according to 14th Amendment (1868).
Said prohibiting abortion violates a woman’s right to privacy, claiming that privacy is “implied” in the 14th Amendment. (Note the actual language excludes women and “Indians not taxed,” so significant interpretation is required on the part of legal scholars in these matters.)
Viability
Roe v. Wade changed the standard of potential personhood for the unborn to viability, “the capacity to survive disconnection from the placenta.” Roe v. Wade’s language is “meaningful life outside the mother’s womb.”
What does meaningful mean? How could this concept of only “meaningful” life being worthwhile be potentially dangerous? Whose personhood could come into question? Who gets to decide what meaningful means?
“Jane Roe” in Roe v. Wade
Her real name was Norma McCorvey. She dedicated the rest of her life to opposing abortion. She died in 2017.
Norma speaks for herself in this short video.
Here is an article about her.
1992 Supreme Court Change
In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the US Supreme Court replaced the trimester framework used in Roe v. Wade with a “floating viability line.” That makes the rights to personhood for the unborn a moving target, as science continues to push back the age of survival. At the time of Roe v. Wade, viability was generally considered to be 28 weeks, or sometimes as early as 24. Today, we hear of survival from as early as 20 weeks.
2022 Supreme Court Change
In the Dobbs case, the legality of abortion was returned to the states. Read the text of this decision here. From pg. 85, 87:
As we have explained, procuring an abortion is not a fundamental constitutional right because such a right has no basis in the Constitution’s text or in our Nation’s history.
It follows that the States may regulate abortion for legitimate reasons, and when such regulations are challenged under the Constitution, courts cannot “substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies”….
Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.
The Roe floating viability line has potential to protect more unborn babies and limit abortion due to technological advances.
Above, baby born at 21 weeks gestation
Link!
The Dobbs decision takes issue with the “arbitrariness” of the viability line.
From pgs. 59-60: This arbitrary line has not found much support among philosophers and ethicists who have attempted to justify a right to abortion. Some have argued that a fetus should not be entitled to legal protection until it acquires the characteristics that they regard as defining what it means to be a “person.” Among the characteristics that have been offered as essential attributes of “personhood” are sentience, self-awareness, the ability to reason, or some combination thereof. By this logic, it would be an open question whether even born individuals, including young children or those afflicted with certain developmental or medical conditions, merit protection as “persons.” But even if one takes the view that “personhood” begins when a certain attribute or combination of attributes is acquired, it is very hard to see why viability should mark the point where “personhood” begins.
The most obvious problem with any such argument is that viability is heavily dependent on factors that have nothing to do with the characteristics of a fetus. One is the state of neonatal care at a particular point in time. Due to the development of new equipment and improved practices, the viability line has changed over the years. In the 19th century, a fetus may not have been viable until the 32d or 33d week of pregnancy or even later. When Roe was decided, viability was gauged at roughly 28 weeks. Today, respondents draw the line at 23 or 24 weeks. So, according to Roe’s logic, States now have a compelling interest in protecting a fetus with a gestational age of, say, 26 weeks, but in 1973 States did not have an interest in protecting an identical fetus. How can that be?
Viability also depends on the “quality of the available medical facilities.”
“Buffer zones”
There have been laws regarding “buffer zones” around abortion clinics that prohibit protesters from coming within a certain distance of women entering/exiting and the clinic itself. The challenge has been that it is a violation of the First Amendment as a restriction of free speech.
Legality ≠ Morality
The fact that abortion is currently legal does not mean it is moral. Similarly, not all immoral activities are outlawed. According to Aristotle and Confucius, good laws are important because they make it easier for people to be virtuous.
Abortion and Religion
World religions have various perspectives on abortion. Due to time constraints, we will not get into this in any detail.
Islam
The perspective in Islam varies. In general, there is the idea that human life should generally be considered sacred and that human life begins at ensoulment. However, abortion is sometimes permitted for various reasons, and the destruction of human life is permitted under various circumstances described in the Koran, etc.
Hinduism
Ideologically, the idea of abortion is incompatible with Hinduism. In practice, this is probably less the case.
It is also hard to talk about “Hinduism” because it is a largely arbitrary term that represents a grouping of dozens if not hundreds of different religions in India.
The ideas of ahimsa (nonharm), reincarnation/potentiality, and the sacredness of all life make abortion incompatible with Hinduism. However, there is a strong preference for boys throughout Asia and discrimination against females of all ages, so selective abortion is actually common.
Judaism
Traditionally, Judaism rejects abortion because it says in Genesis that people are created in the image and likeness of God. In contemporary, liberalized forms of Judaism, abortion is more accepted. Orthodox (traditional) forms of Judaism do not generally accept abortion.
Christianity
Christianity has historically rejected abortion on the same grounds as Judaism. The Didache (first/second century document) rejects abortion, as do many of the Church Fathers of the first several hundred years. Our text claims that the Catholic Church “changed its position,” but this is untrue (again, note the lack of citation).
Even Protestant Christians rejected both abortion and artificial contraception until recently, when positions became more liberalized. In the late twentieth century, many Protestant denominations began to return to the Catholic position on abortion, and some to the anti-contraception position as well.
Medical vs. Surgical Abortions
Abortion is usually divided into these two categories.
“Medical” has to do with pills such as the “morning after pill,” which is a high-dose birth control pill. It prevents implantation. Medical abortion is used for pregnancies that are about seven weeks and prior.
Although this is not an academic source, it is a pretty good summary: https://abortionmethods.weebly.com/blog/category/all
Morning After Pill
High dose hormonal birth control taken over the three days following intercourse
“Emergency contraceptives”
Can be an abortifacient. May prevent ovulation, prevent fertilization, or prevent the conceived “blastocyst” from implanting in the uterine wall. It is roughly 75% effective in stopping the pregnancy from progressing.
Mifepristone or RU-486
Approved by FDA in US in 2000
3 pharmaceuticals: methotrexate, misoprotol, and mifepristone
3-doses induce menstruation, block progesterone, expels embryo. Baby’s oxygen/blood supply/nutrients cut off. +90% effective in under 7 wks gestation. Failure rate: 2-15%, higher as pregnancy progresses (supposed to be used up to 10 wks)
Death/expelling not immediate, can take 1-2 wks.
Extreme pain, vomiting, bleeding, diarrhea, infection are common for the mother. May need to be followed by vacuum aspiration. Other side-effects, like “malformed baby”, etc. Supposed to be overseen by doctor.
Mifepristone: +50% of abortions (2024)
To date (2022), Mifepristone has been used for about 20 years.
No randomized trials to systematically assess the immediate, short, mid, or long-term risks of this drug have been conducted.
Like many pharmaceutical products, any literature has been funded by those with a vested interest in selling or promoting the drug (financial or ideological motivations).
Complications of Medical (Chemical) Abortion
Via FDA:
1 out of every 25 women seek emergency room treatment
Since approved in 2000, at least: 4,218 women had adverse effects, 1,049 were hospitalized, 604 had severe blood loss, 418 had infections. (These numbers are likely to be very low due to underreporting.)
Many studies have shown that women who undergo abortion (chemical or surgical) have higher rates of depression, anxiety, PTSD, and substance abuse.
Surgical Abortion
Surgical abortion is more “effective” than medical abortion, meaning it causes the death of the fetus (baby).
Surgical abortion includes many methods. A doctor’s intervention is necessary. The following slides describe different types of surgical abortion.
Dilation and Curettage (D&C)
Expands the cervix so curette can be inserted to scrape the uterine wall.
Less common now because of possibility of puncturing the uterus and causing the death of the mother.
Sometimes used in conjunction with D&E.
This procedure is still used with some frequency for other conditions, like miscarriage.* When done for other conditions, it is not an abortion, since the death of the unborn does not occur. The singular goal in other situations is to prevent infection.
*See video in slide 37.
D&E (Dilation & Extraction)
D&E dismembers (rips into pieces via suction) the partially born fetus as it comes through the birth canal. A euphemism sometimes used is “emptying the uterus.” Sometimes called “dilation and evacuation.” You can find more detailed descriptions and diagrams/photos of this online.
The process is described here.
Vacuum Aspiration (D&E)
Not uncommonly used in conjunction with curettage.
The basics of suction and curettage (D&E) are described here.*
*It’s tough to chase broken links each semester. This is probably my third one for the D&E procedure. I apologize if any others are broken.
Partial birth abortion
Partial birth abortion is late-term abortion. It involves the partial birth of the baby. It is referred to medically as an “intact dilation and extraction” or simply “dilation and extraction.” “Intact D&E” is when the baby is delivered in its entirety without first being dismembered. Then a hole is cut in the base of the neck, and the brain and spinal fluid are suctioned out. Partial birth abortion has gone through bans and challenges since 2000. The ban was upheld in 2007.
Intact Dilation and Extraction (IDX or Partial Birth)
In partial birth abortion, the feet of the baby are delivered first, prior to puncturing, suctioning, and crushing the skull to kill the baby and easily fit it through the birth canal.
The first known use of this method of abortion was 1983. Prior to its federal ban in 2003, about 2,200 were performed annually.
Hysterectomy/Hysteronomy
Hysterectomy: surgical removal of the entire uterus
Hysteronomy: removal of infant in utero through an incision in the uterus (think abdominal surgery via cesarean section)
Both of these are rare except in emergencies. They are typically late-term and the infant usually survives, so they are not necessarily effective methods of abortion.
Medical induction of uterine contractions
16-20 weeks: surgical abortion or via uterine contraction
Saline solution: With a saline abortion, amniotic fluid is replaced with saline, which often burns and kills the infant in utero. Less frequently used.
Prostaglandins: An intramuscular or intravaginal injection of prostaglandins induces labor. Fewer live births tend to occur than saline. Less frequently used.
Risk: babies born alive: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/09/27/the-only-reason-i-am-alive-is-the-fact-that-the-abortionist-had-not-yet-arrived-at-work/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3f97ed03b45b
Development of the “fetus”
Heart starts beating by end of the fourth week, about the size of a grain of rice.
Central nervous system is well formed by second month. Bone starts to form. By end of second month, baby is about an inch long. At six weeks, heartbeat can be more easily detected (externally).
By about eight weeks: arms, hands, fingers, feet, toes, toenails, genitalia, etc. are all formed. Can make fist and open and close mouth. All organs formed. Baby is fully formed in terms of having all essential body parts. The rest is growth. Baby is about four inches.
Brain waves
One criteria that has been posited for personhood has been the presence of brain waves, which occurs at six weeks.
Who is excluded from personhood if the presence of brain activity becomes a criteria for personhood?
Let’s take a look at some pictures and videos.
In order to have an informed perspective regarding the morality of abortion, we must understand what the moral status or personhood status of the “fetus” or unborn human is.
Is the unborn human to be included in the moral community? On what grounds?
Is there a point at which inclusion into the moral community is warranted? If so, what makes this point important or different from other stages of development?
These slides show us what is going on during pregnancy.
https://slideplayer.com/slide/9386745/ https://www.onhealth.com/content/1/fetal_development_stages
Credit for the following slides are here.
Sentience
Pain receptors begin forming in preborn infants as early as 10 weeks of gestation, possibly earlier. Still work being done on this—a lot we don’t know.
Nerves in a child’s spine required to signal the brain are fully formed by 15 weeks old.
Videos of fetal development
https://youtu.be/S-lQOooYAs8?si=luA3igFFgU4ktYev, 3 minutes, 2024 used by multiple states
https://youtu.be/unVfW5FVnDU shorter
https://youtu.be/W_twYPeBSRg longer
https://youtu.be/WtDknjng8TA step by step development, short
https://youtu.be/K7kaw40pPYw (9-10 months in 4 minutes)
https://youtu.be/fKyljukBE70?t=2m2s real pictures, from TED
https://youtu.be/l1qvUPYDnOY prenatal development in two minutes
Mary Anne Warren’s Five Criteria for Personhood
Consciousness (of objects and events external and/or internal)
Reasoning (ability to solve new and complex problems)
Self-motivated activity
Capacity to communicate in some way
Self-awareness
Who/what could get excluded from personhood, by her criteria?
Mary Anne Warren excludes
newborns from personhood.
An unborn human does not become a person until sometime after birth, when it becomes a “socially responsive member of a human community.”
What, then, would be morally permissible, in Warren’s conception of personhood?
John Noonan’s Criteria for Personhood
Biological humanhood=personhood
Utilitarians on Abortion
Only sentient beings have personhood, so an unborn human only deserves consideration when s/he can experience pain.
It is generally accepted that unborn humans can experience pain by 13 weeks gestation, if not earlier (around three months). The presence of brain waves can be detected by six weeks.
“Viability”
Viability replaced “quickening” in Roe v. Wade.
That makes viability a criterion for personhood.
In the case of unborn humans, viability outside the womb becomes dependent on technology rather than on any characteristic of the infant in utero.
Potentiality
Because a fertilized egg, “zygote,” and so forth have the potential to develop into a “full-fledged adult” (whatever that means), s/he has moral status as a person and deserves protection.
Don Marquis (Why Abortion is Immoral) argues that killing of unborn humans deprives them of the value of their future. The future life of a fetus has value.
Other issues deal with these same arguments.
Cloning, embryonic stem cell research, and IDX (partial birth) abortion are connected to these arguments for/against personhood.
Who has personhood?
Note that pretty much all of the issues we are dealing with this semester will come down to the same question: Who has personhood?
If an individual has personhood, then s/he is included in the moral community, has rights, and deserves protection.
Personhood cannot be a matter of personal or cultural opinion.
Both are lazy reasoning, or total lack of reasoning.
What are the consequences of failing to reason in matters of personhood?
Ethical subjectivism = individually defining personhood. As long as we can individually determine, without reason (“opinion” or preference), that an individual is not a person, we can do anything. We can enslave, commit infanticide, genocide, murder at will.
It is also crucial that we not participate in cultural relativism. The culture cannot be the arbiter of personhood. When that occurs, we see the same types of actions listed above. Personhood cannot be based on cultural assumptions or political/economic expediency.
Personhood cannot depend on wantedness
Wantedness = ethical subjectivism (or relativism)
If personhood (inclusion in moral community) depends on wantedness, then who else can be eliminated?
Some would deny moral rights to unborn humans at any stage of their development.
What, then, are the criteria for personhood?
What, then, about laws and medical advice regarding use of hazardous drugs and foods for pregnant women?
What if abortion is morally permissible sometimes?
What, then, are our criteria for determining when it is permissible?
If it is sentiency, then the method of abortion matters. Is it possible to kill a fetus painlessly? Does this limit when abortions should be permissible?
Is killing humans acceptable sometimes?
If abortion is acceptable sometimes, then when? Why?
When does personhood begin? Why?
If sentience, then abortion will be limited to fairly early in first trimester.
If potentiality is a standard, then abortion may never be possible.
If rationality is necessary, then already born people can also be eliminated.
if a woman’s autonomy is absolute, then abortion is permissible until birth.
Judith Jarvis Thomson
Even if the unborn human has some moral standing, the rights of the mother always outweigh the rights of the developing fetus.
Does this perspective pit the mother against her developing child in utero? Is this a false dilemma?
Mary Anne Warren
A woman’s liberty rights (autonomy) are paramount.
To deny a woman the right to abortion is to treat her as a means-only.
Is autonomy an absolute right?
What about the autonomy/liberty rights of the unborn human? Its body will be destroyed in the process.
If women’s autonomy over their own bodies is paramount, even in pregnancy, what about drug and alcohol use and other prenatal behaviors?
Autonomy rights vs. Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, etc.
According to our text, “more infants are born with fetal alcohol syndrome than the combined total of Down’s syndrome, spina bifida, muscular dystrophy, and HIV.”
While this is true, the reason why so few children are born with Down’s syndrome is that more than 90% of unborn humans in the US whose screenings come back positive for potential Down’s are aborted. The same is true for others.
In any case, the question arises, is the autonomy of pregnant women limited because of the potential dangers of smoking, alcohol consumption, etc.? Is it right to do so?
Social Reasons for Abortion
Abortion as a result of rape
Abortion because of the age of the mother (such as teenage pregnancy)
Abortion due to lack of monetary resources
Abortion because of educational status
Abortion because of inconvenience
Abortion because the baby is a female (selective)
Abortion due to potential disability (selective)
Are there problems with the social reasons listed?
None of the reasons for abortion address the personhood status of the fetus.
Right, 5-6 weeks gestation
Serrin Foster
Abortion degrades women by pitting women’s rights against babies’ rights. (In other words, the abortion question raises a false dilemma.)
Abortion harms women because it removes the incentive for government, schools, and workplaces to provide resources for pregnant women to continue their educations and careers.
Separate issues
The question of the “burdens” of pregnancy and childbirth are separate from the issue of raising a child after birth because adoption relieves the latter.
Nevertheless, there remain stigmas of pregnancy in the workplace (women lose their jobs regularly) and of adopting one’s child still exist.
Do permissive abortion practices (abortion on demand) exacerbate these problems? Studies are required to demonstrate this.
Birth control and abstinence
Although not dealt with much in this chapter in the text, the question of birth control and abstinence as ways to curb the problem of abortion are worth exploring. Abortion rates have skyrocketed since sexual mores in American culture changed in the late 1960s to 1970s, leading to the Roe v. Wade decision.
Fathers’ Rights and Duties
Should fathers have rights over their unborn children? In the past, there were spousal notification laws with regard to not only abortion, but also tubal ligation.
The contraception and abortion issues have been “marketed” almost exclusively to women, with no responsibility being expected of the men who also cause pregnancies.
Steven Hales
Philosopher Steven Hales argues that men should have the right to refuse to contribute to child support if women refuse to have an abortion. This is called “paper abortion.” (It is a threat.)
This would be the opposite of consequentialism, but also the opposite of a deontological approach, and the opposite of liberty rights. This is…irresponsibility. Isn’t the time to choose whether one is willing to support a potential child prior to the sexual encounter? No one forces a man to have sex with a woman, therefore it follows that no one should force a woman to undergo an abortion.
Right to child support
Most agree that it is fair to “force” fathers to pay child support should a woman not abort her child, even though she does not have a duty to consult the father regarding the pregnancy.
It is also useful to note that in the U.S., collection of child support is not well-enforced. In situations of abuse or estrangement, it is not uncommon for women to prefer not to receive child support because they do not want any association with the father.
Selective Abortion
Tens of millions (close to a billion) female babies are aborted or killed after birth in Asia alone in a given year, according to UN statistics.
Definition: when a particular baby is unwanted due to genetic difference/disability or “wrong gender” (almost always because the baby is female), sometimes called gendercide or femicide
Selective abortion is common.
Where males are preferred, unborn females are aborted at very high rates. In India and China, this is extremely common. In China, there is now an inverse pyramid for both population and gender. Selective abortion is also legal in the United States.
The vast majority of unborn humans who are at high risk of “defect” are aborted. In the U.S., approximately 90%+ of fetuses suspected of having Down Syndrome are aborted (depending on the study you look at). (Because not all are diagnosed or the “screening” is inaccurate, some say the rate is lower. In either case, it is the vast majority.)
Eugenics
(Pretty good summary here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics, in addition to history, a list of types of eugenics is included near bottom of article. Eugenics in the USA has its own article, which isn’t bad, but missing some information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States)
Text defines it as “the science of improving the genetic quality of offspring.”
From Greek eugenes, roughly translated “good stock or offspring.”
This is an atypical and controversial definition at this time. Term coined in 1883 by Francis Galton (cousin of Darwin), although the concept is ancient. It has resulted in marriage prohibition and sterilization of those deemed unfit to breed (those with low IQ, developmental or neurological differences, “deviants,” etc.). These practices persist in the U.S. to this day, but mostly ceased in the 1970s and 80s. Although formal eugenics “programs” do not exist in the U.S., they continue through selective abortion practices and genetic programs (euphemistically referred to as “transhumanism”).
Eugenics
Eugenics is restricting birth (who is allowed to be born) in numerous ways, including birth control, abortion, infanticide, sterilization, etc. The methodologies are not necessarily voluntary. The goal is the “improved” or “purified” human and the removal of “lesser” individuals (of whatever type) from the genetic pool. Eugenics is a means of genocide.
Gendercide (Mary Anne Warren) & Femicide
gendercide: the intentional killing of a particular sex by means of abortion, infanticide, etc. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gendercide)
femicide: the intentional killing of women/females by means of abortion, infanticide, murder (“Female foeticide” is another term sometimes used for selective abortion of female babies.)
Links
On infanticide in India: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/India-loses-3-million-girls-in-infanticide/article12551293.ece
On infanticide in China: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_infanticide_in_China
On female infanticide generally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_infanticide
On China’s one-child policy, forced abortions, and a gender imbalance: https://www.npr.org/2016/02/01/465124337/how-chinas-one-child-policy-led-to-forced-abortions-30-million-bachelors
More on China: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/10/29/the-human-suffering-caused-by-chinas-one-child-policy/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.32945e891d0b
The basic facts on female infanticide, from the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/medical/infanticide_1.shtml
From The Global War Against Baby Girls: https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-global-war-against-baby-girls
“Differential infant and child mortality rates arguably also offer clues about son preference: societies where female rates exceed male rates (patterns arising from systemic discriminatory mistreatment of little girls) may be correspondingly disposed to prenatal gender discrimination as well. According to the World Health Organization’s 2009 Life Tables, over 60 countries currently experience higher infant or age 1-4 mortality rates for girls than for boys: a roster including much of South-Central Asia, North Africa and the Middle East, parts of Latin America and the Caribbean, and over a dozen countries in sub-Saharan Africa. If such gender bias in mortality turns out to be a predictor of sex-selection bias, this global problem may get considerably worse before it gets better.”
Local connection: Henry Goddard
worked in Vineland at the Training School
coined term “moron” for clinical use
Quaker (as was Galton), ethnocentrist, classist
early advocate/pioneer of “intelligence testing” (IQ). His “study” of “feeble-mindedness” was applied to 2nd class and steerage immigrants; tested 35 Jewish, 22 Hungarian, 50 Italian, 45 Russian immigrants deemed “representative of their respective groups.” Found: about 80% of immigrants were “feeble-minded.” Breakdown: 83% of Jews, 80% of Hungarians, 79% of Italians, and 80% of Russians of the study population qualified as such. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_H._Goddard for more
Down Syndrome Advocacy
Self-advocates and advocates for human diversity have begun to campaign against selective abortion. See the following groups for more on this:
Saving Down Syndrome: http://www.savingdownsyndrome.org/ (founded in NZ, but it is international)
Nothing Down: https://www.facebook.com/nothingdown/ www.nothingdown.org (This is a local, South Jersey organization)
Don’t Screen Us Out: https://dontscreenusout.org/ (based in Britain)
What Downs Advocates Are Saying
From Saving Down Syndrome:
“Saving Downs is an international social justice advocacy for people with Down syndrome. We focus on providing a balanced perspective on life with Down syndrome and supporting parents with a prenatal diagnosis. We raise awareness around the discriminatory and eugenic nature of the practice of antenatal screening worldwide. We wish to ensure that prenatal screening exists only to provide unborn children with Down syndrome and their parents with life-affirming, unbiased care through advocacy, education, support and understanding; worldwide. Saving Downs acknowledges that people with Down syndrome have a right to be born free from discrimination, and to be treated on an equal basis with all. Saving Downs does not consider a diagnosis of Down syndrome to be a reason for terminating a pregnancy.”
Problem with consequentialism: fails to see the inherent dignity and the potentiality of the individual, negating personhood. However, even looking at the actual consequence, death is not preferable to hardship.
Autonomy, Burdens, and Designer Babies
Selective abortion is weighed against the concept of female autonomy. Is there a right to autonomy? Are there limits on autonomy? Does the baby have a right to autonomy?
Does the notion of “imperfect” or “disabled” babies being a burden give parents the right to abort them? Should they be permitted birth and adoption? Should governmental/social expenses be weighed?
Do people have the right to discard babies that are not to their liking/expectations? If so, are their limits on this right?
“Those who favor a permissive abortion policy
point to the harmful consequences of restrictive abortion policies.”
- complications/death from self-induced or illegal abortions
- “overpopulation”
- “burden” on women of mandatory motherhood during and after pregnancy
- “burden” of unwanted children on society
The importance of weighing reliable facts
Consequentialist/Utilitarian arguments (and all reasonable argumentation) require that we base our arguments in fact.
Text points out consequentialist argumentation because it is frequently used by pro-abortion advocates, as we shall see in the next couple slides.
“Pro-Child, Pro-Choice”
This argument asserts that when children are wanted, they will be better off. When they are unwanted, death is preferable.
“Studies have not shown that legalized abortion leads to a decrease in child abuse nor that it improves the quality of life of born children.”
Many pro-life feminists argue that abortion leads to the devaluation of children and an increase in child abuse. Others argue that certain death is not preferable to the possibility of a difficult life.
Years after Roe v. Wade led to a decline in the overall well-being of born children.
“The ‘social health’ of children…began a steady course of decline beginning in 1974, the year after abortion was legalized.”
“Rates of child abuse began rising after 1973, increasing 566% between 1977 and 1980.”
Could any of this rise be attributed to increased measurement and awareness of child abuse? Is there a causal relationship between abortion on-demand and overall child welfare/value? According to the text, no, because improvement in reporting/measurement occurred in the 1980s.
A Johns Hopkins Study
A study conducted at Johns Hopkins Hospital (Baltimore, MD) department of Social Services found that previous abortion and stillbirths place a family at significantly higher risk for child abuse, independent of other socioeconomic factors.
Abortion is strongly connected to risk of abuse.
“Previous abortions and stillbirths place a family at significantly higher risk for child abuse, independently of other factors such as socioeconomic and marital status.”
“Psychologist Phillip Nye suggests that by legitimating the death of the fetus in utero we have weakened the normal instinctual restraint and social taboo against the use of violence against young children dependent on our care.”
“We cannot argue in favor of abortion on the grounds that it benefits born children. Instead, we must be willing to examine the morality of abortion, using factually correct premises and consistent arguments.”
Don’t Like Abortion? Don’t Have One
This argument is invalid. It is useful to discern when an argument is invalid by inserting alternate scenarios, such as “if you don’t believe in slavery, don’t own slaves.” This argument fails to address the issues of personhood and universal principles. It defaults to ethical subjectivism.
Ethical analysis is not a matter of personal whim or majority consensus.
These would be ethical subjectivism or cultural relativism.
In order to arrive at ethical decisions, it is essential that we use logic and to consistently apply it.
Personal Virtue, Corporate Virtue
Certain acts, even those without obvious victims, corrupt the actor,
yet
All moral wrongs (such as the destruction of human life) have a corporate nature.
