Abortion: pro et contra
https://doi.org/10.25206/2542-0488-2024-9-2-120-131
EDN: YSEOFY
Abstract
The article provides a critical review of some of the most common arguments actively used in the abortion debate. Based on the notion of moral personhood, the main groups of such arguments (no full moral status, full moral status, and gradualism) are identified and characterized. Separate consideration is given to the right of pregnant women to abortion, the legal defense of the fetus’ right to life, and the practice of using the medical concept of viability in law.
About the Authors
S. Holm
University of Oslo; The University of Manchester
Norway
Norway
Oslo; United Kingdom; Manchester
J. Lewis
The University of Manchester
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
Manchester
A. V. Nekhaev
Omsk State Technical University; Tyumen State University; Tomsk Scientific
Center, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Andrei Viktorovich Nekhaev, translator from English, Doctor of Philosophical Sciences, Associate Professor, Professor, Professor of Department, Research Associate
History, Philosophy and Social Communications Department; Philosophy Department; Laboratory of Logical and Philosophical Studies
Omsk; Tyumen; Tomsk
AuthorID (RSCI)): 394939; AuthorID (SCOPUS): 57211853279; ResearcherID: M-7208-2016
References
1. Sulmasy D. P. Emergency Contraception for Women Who Have Been Raped: Must Catholics Test for Ovulation, or Is Testing for Pregnancy Morally Sufficient? // Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal. 2006. Vol. 16, no. 4. P. 305–331. DOI: 10.1353/ken.2006.0026. (In Engl.).
2. Purdy L. Is Emergency Contraception Murder? // Reproductive BioMedicine Online. 2009. Vol. 18. P. 37–42. DOI: 10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60114-9. (In Engl.).
3. Sheldon S. The Regulatory Cliff Edge Between Contraception and Abortion: The Legal and Moral Significance of Implantation // Journal of Medical Ethics. 2015. Vol. 41, no. 9. P. 762–765. DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2015-102712. (In Engl.).
4. Hall A. Selective Reduction of Pregnancy: A Legal Analysis // Journal of Medical Ethics. 1996. Vol. 22, no. 5. P. 304–308. DOI: 10.1136/jme.22.5.304. (In Engl.).
5. McClimans L. Elective Twin Reductions: Evidence and Ethics // Bioethics. 2010. Vol. 24, no. 6. P. 295–303. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.01704.x. (In Engl.).
6. Rao R. Selective Reduction: ‘A Soft Cover for Hard Choices’ or Another Name for Abortion? // Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. 2015. Vol. 43, no. 2. P. 196–205. DOI: 10.1111/jlme.12233. (In Engl.).
7. Jackson E. Regulating Reproduction: Law, Technology and Autonomy. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2001. 368 p. (In Engl.).
8. Cook R. J, Dickens B. M, Fathalla M. F. Reproductive Health and Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. 584 p. (In Engl.).
9. Abortion Care Guideline. World Health Organization, Geneva, 2022. URL: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240039483 (accessed: 14. 12. 2023). (In Engl.).
10. Romanis E. C. Abortion Access and the Benefits and Limitations of Abortion-Permissive Legal Frameworks: Lessons from the United Kingdom // Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 2023. Vol. 32, no. 3. P. 378–390. DOI: 10.1017/S096318012200086X. (In Engl.).
11. Scott R. Interpreting the Disability Ground of the Abortion Act // The Cambridge Law Journal. 2005. Vol. 64, no. 2. P. 388–412. DOI: 10.1017/S0008197305006902. (In Engl.).
12. Holm S. The Expressivist Objection to Prenatal Diagnosis: Can It Be Laid to Rest? // 2008. Vol. 34, no. 1. P. 24–25. DOI: 10.1136/jme.2006.019984. (In Engl.).
13. McGuinness S. Law, Reproduction, and Disability: Fatally ‘Handicapped’? // Medical Law Review. 2013. Vol. 21, no. 2. P. 213–242. DOI: 10.1093/medlaw/fws041. (In Engl.).
14. Caplan A. L., Wilson J. M. The Ethical Challenges of in Utero Gene Therapy // Nature Genetics. 2000. Vol. 24, no. 2. P. 107. DOI: 10.1038/72747. (In Engl.).
15. Savulescu J. Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best Children // Bioethics. 2001. Vol. 15, no. 5/6. P. 413–426. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8519.0251. (In Engl.).
16. Cameron C., Williamson R. Is There an Ethical Difference Between Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis and Abortion? // Journal of Medical Ethics. 2003. Vol. 29, no. 2. P. 90–92. DOI: 10.1136/jme.29.2.90. (In Engl.).
17. Steinbock B. Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis and Embryo Selection // A Companion to Genethics / Eds.: J. Burley, J. Harris. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004. P. 175–190. (In Engl.).
18. Baker L. R. Persons and Bodies: A Constitution View. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. 233 p. (In Engl.).
19. Chisholm R. M. Person and Object: A Metaphysical Study. La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1976. 230 p. (In Engl.).
20. Wiggins D. Sameness and Substance. Oxford Blackwell, 1980. 238 p. (In Engl.).
21. Shoemaker D. Personal Identity and Ethics // The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy / Ed. E. N. Zalta. URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-ethics/ (accessed: 14. 12. 2023). (In Engl.).
22. Warren M. A. On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion // Monist. 1973. Vol. 57, no. 1. P. 43–61. DOI: 10.5840/monist197357133. (In Engl.).
23. English J. Abortion and the Concept of a Person // Canadian Journal of Philosophy. 1975. Vol. 5, no. 2. P. 233–243. DOI: 10.1080/00455091.1975.10716109. (In Engl.).
24. Glover J. Causing Death and Saving Lives: The Moral Problems of Abortion, Infanticide, Suicide, Euthanasia, Capital Punishment, War and Other Life-or-Death Choices. London: Pelican Books, 1977. 336 p. (In Engl.).
25. Singer P. Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals. New York: Harper Collins, 1975. 301 p. (In Engl.).
26. Raz J. On the Nature of Rights // Mind. 1984. Vol. 93, no. 370. P. 194–214. DOI: 10.1093/mind/XCIII.370.194. (In Engl.).
27. Raz J. The Morality of Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986. 435 p. (In Engl.).
28. Kramer M. H. Rights without Trimmings // A Debate over Rights: Philosophical Enquiries / Eds.: M. H. Kramer, N. E. Simmonds, H. Steiner. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. P. 7–111. (In Engl.).
29. Kramer M. H. Getting Rights Right // Rights, Wrongs and Responsibilities / Ed. M. H. Kramer. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2001. P. 28–95. (In Engl.).
30. Kramer M. H. Some Doubts about Alternatives to the Interest Theory of Rights // Ethics. 2013. Vol. 123, no. 2. P. 245–263. DOI: 10.1086/668705. (In Engl.).
31. Tooley M. Abortion and Infanticide // Philosophy & Public Affairs. 1972. Vol. 2, no. 1. P. 37–65. (In Engl.).
32. Tooley M. Abortion and Infanticide. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983. 441 p. (In Engl.).
33. Engelhardt H. T. The Foundations of Bioethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986. 446 p. (In Engl.).
34. Harris J. The Value of Life: An Introduction to Medical Ethics. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985. 300 p. (In Engl.).
35. McMahan J. The Ethics of Killing: Problems at the Margins of Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. 540 p. (In Engl.).
36. Singer P. Practical Ethics. Cambridg: Cambridge University Press, 1993. 395 p. (In Engl.).
37. Buss S. The Value of Humanity // The Journal of Philosophy. 2012. Vol. 109, no. 5/6. P. 341–377. DOI: 10.5840/jphil20121095/614. (In Engl.).
38. Feinberg J., Levenbook B. B. Abortion // Matters of Life and Death: New Introductory Essays in Moral Philosophy / Ed. T. Regan. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1993. P. 183–234. (In Engl.).
39. Clinkenbeard W. W. On the Trail of the Holy Humanhood // Journal of Medical Ethics. 1989. Vol. 15, no. 2. P. 90–91. DOI: 10.1136/jme.15.2.90. (In Engl.).
40. Kuhse H., Singer P. Should the Baby Live? The Problem of Handicapped Infants. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985. 228 p. (In Engl.).
41. Warren M. A. The Moral Significance of Birth // Hypatia. 1989. Vol. 4, no. 3. P. 46–65. DOI: 10.1111/j.1527-2001.1989.tb00591.x. (In Engl.).
42. Langerak E. A. Abortion: Listening to the Middle // The Hastings Center Report. 1979. Vol. 9, no. 5. P. 24–28. DOI: 10.2307/3561517. (In Engl.).
43. Greasley K. Arguments about Abortion: Personhood, Morality, and the Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. 269 p. (In Engl.).
44. Rodger D., Blackshaw B. P., Miller C. Beyond Infanticide: How Psychological Accounts of Persons Can Justify Harming Infants // The New Bioethics. 2018. Vol. 24, no. 2. P. 106–121. DOI: 10.1080/20502877.2018.1438771. (In Engl.).
45. Lagercrantz H., Changeux J.-P. The Emergence of Human Consciousness: From Fetal to Neonatal Life // Pediatric Research. 2009. Vol. 65, no. 3. P. 255–260. DOI: 10.1203/PDR.0b013e3181973b0d. (In Engl.).
46. Kluge E.-H. W. The Right to Life of Potential Persons // Dalhousie Law Journal. 1977. Vol. 3, no. 3. P. 837–848. (In Engl.).
47. Himma K. E. A Dualist Analysis of Abortion: Personhood and the Concept of Self Qua Experiential Subject // Journal of Medical Ethics. 2005. Vol. 31, no. 1. P. 48–55. DOI: 10.1136/jme.2002.000828. (In Engl.).
48. Dunstan G. R. The Moral Status of the Human Embryo: A Tradition Recalled // Journal of Medical Ethics. 1984. Vol. 10, no. 1. P. 38–44. DOI: 10.1136/jme.10.1.38. (In Engl.).
49. Aksoy S. The Beginning of Human Life and Embryos: A Philosophical and Theological Perspective // Reproductive BioMedicine Online. 2007. Vol. 14. P. 86–91. DOI: 10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60736-5. (In Engl.).
50. Morgan L. M. The Potentiality Principle from Aristotle to Abortion // Current Anthropology. 2013. Vol. 54, no. S7. P. S15–S25. DOI: 10.1086/670804. (In Engl.).
51. Gуmez-Lobo A. Inviolability at Any Age // Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal. 2007. Vol. 17, no. 4. P. 311–320. DOI: 10.1353/ken.2008.0008. (In Engl.).
52. Persons, Moral Worth, and Embryos: A Critical Analysis of Pro-Choice Arguments / Ed. S. Napier. Dordrecht: Springer, 2011. 283 p. (In Engl.).
53. Donceel J. F. Immediate Animation and Delayed Hominization // Theological Studies. 1970. Vol. 31, no. 1. P. 76–105. DOI: 10.1177/004056397003100103. (In Engl.).
54. Eberl J. T. The Beginning of Personhood: A Thomistic Biological Analysis // Bioethics. 2000. Vol. 14, no. 2. P. 134–157. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8519.00186. (In Engl.).
55. Meyer J. R. Embryonic Personhood, Human Nature, and Rational Ensoulment // The Heythrop Journal. 2006. Vol. 47, no. 2. P. 206–225. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2265.2006.00285.x. (In Engl.).
56. Al-Bukhari Imam M. Sahih Al-Bukhari (Hadith). In 9 vols. Beirut: Dar Al Maarifah, 1995. Vol. 3. 238 p. (In Arab.).
57. Albar M. Human Development as Revealed in the Qur’an and Hadith: The Creation of Man Between Medicine and the Quran. Jeddah: Saudi Publishing House, 1996. 149 p. (In Engl.).
58. Khitamy B. A. Divergent Views on Abortion and the Period of Ensoulment // Sultan Qaboos University Medical Journal. 2013. Vol. 13, no. 1. P. 26–31. DOI: 10.12816/0003192. (In Engl.).
59. Rosner F. Modern Medicine and Jewish Ethics. New York: Yeshiva University Press, 1986. 405 p. (In Engl.).
60. Jakobovits I. The Status of the Embryo in the Jewish Tradition // The Status of the Human Embryo: Perspectives from Moral Traditions / Eds.: G. R. Dunstan, M. J. Seller. London: King’s Fund Publishing, 1988. P. 62–73. (In Engl.).
61. Marquis D. Why Abortion Is Immoral // The Journal of Philosophy. 1989. Vol. 86, no. 4. P. 183–202. DOI: 10.2307/2026961.(In Engl.).
62. Marquis D. Deprivations, Futures and the Wrongness of Killing // Journal of Medical Ethics. 2001. Vol. 27, no. 6. P. 363–369. DOI: 10.1136/jme.27.6.363. (In Engl.).
63. Marquis D. Brill’s Objections to the Future of Value Argument // Social Theory and Practice. 2005. Vol. 31, no. 1. P. 105–114. DOI: 10.5840/soctheorpract20053115. (In Engl.).
64. Marquis D. Why Abortion is Seriously Wrong: Two Views // Bioethics with Liberty and Justice: Themes in the Work of Joseph M. Boyle / Ed. C. Tollefsen. Dordrecht: Springer, 2011. P. 3–22. (In Engl.).
65. Strong C. A Critique of ‘the Best Secular Argument Against Abortion’ // Journal of Medical Ethics. 2008. Vol. 34, no. 10. P. 727–731. DOI: 10.1136/jme.2008.024646. (In Engl.).
66. Stone J. Why Potentiality Matters // Canadian Journal of Philosophy. 1987. Vol. 17, no. 4. P. 815–829. DOI: 10.1080/00455091.1987.10715920. (In Engl.).
67. Hare R. M. Abortion and the Golden Rule // Philosophy & Public Affairs. 1975. Vol. 4, no. 3 P. 201–222. (In Engl.).
68. Persson I. Inclusive Ethics: Extending Beneficence and Egalitarian Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. 272 p. (In Engl.).
69. Persson I. Harming the Non-Conscious // Bioethics. 1999. Vol. 13, no. 3/4. P. 294–305. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8519.00158. (In Engl.).
70. Warren M. A. Do Potential People Have Moral Rights? // Canadian Journal of Philosophy. 1977. Vol. 7, no. 2. P. 275–289. DOI: 10.1080/00455091.1977.10717018. (In Engl.).
71. Holm S. The Moral Status of the Pre-Personal Human Being: The Argument from Potential Reconsidered // Conceiving the Embryo / Eds.: D. Evans, N. Pickering. Dordrecht: Klüwer, 1996. P. 193–220. (In Engl.).
72. Burgess J. A. Potential and Foetal Value // Journal of Applied Philosophy. 2010. Vol. 27, no. 2. P. 140–153. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-5930.2010.00482.x. (In Engl.).
73. Engelhardt H. T. The Ontology of Abortion // Ethics. 1974. Vol. 84, no. 3. P. 217–234. DOI: 10.1086/291919. (In Engl.).
74. Sumner L. W. A Third Way // The Problem of Abortion / Eds.: J. Feinberg, S. Dwyer. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing, 1997. P. 98–117. (In Engl.).
75. Little M. O. Abortion and the Margins of Personhood // Rutgers Law Journal. 2008. Vol. 39. P. 331–348. (In Engl.).
76. Warren M. A. Moral Status: Obligations to Persons and Other Living Things. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. 265 p. (In Engl.).
77. Global Abortion Policies Database. World Health Organization, Geneva, 2022. URL: https://abortion-policies.srhr.org/ (accessed: 14. 12. 2023). (In Engl.).
78. The World’s Abortion Laws. Center for Reproductive Rights, New York, 2022. URL: https://reproductiverights.org/our-issues/abortion/ (accessed: 14. 12. 2023). (In Engl.).
79. Romanis E. C. Is ‘Viability’ Viable? Abortion, Conceptual Confusion and the Law in England and Wales and the United States // Journal of Law and the Biosciences. 2020. Vol. 7, no. 1. P. 1–29. DOI: 10.1093/jlb/lsaa059. (In Engl.).
80. Jackson E. Abortion, Autonomy and Prenatal Diagnosis // Social & Legal Studies. 2000. Vol. 9, no. 4. P. 467–494. DOI: 10.1177/096466390000900401. (In Engl.).
Review
For citations:
Holm S., Lewis J., Nekhaev A.V. Abortion: pro et contra. Omsk Scientific Bulletin. Series Society. History. Modernity. 2024;9(2):120-131. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.25206/2542-0488-2024-9-2-120-131. EDN: YSEOFY
Views:
36
JATS XML
Email this article 