These articles tend to be more substantive than our other pieces. Some pro-life arguments are more persuasive to pro-choice people than other arguments. We aim to teach arguments that are both persuasive and philosophically sound.
Emily Albrecht responds to the pro-choice claim that the embryo isn’t a philosophical person with rights like you and I. How should we think about equal rights and who deserves them?
Watch all the videos in ERI’s Quick Response series here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsN8Ay8poS-It-dWSmblq1ZufOH-MVj1L
Emily Albrecht responds to the pro-choice claim that the embryo isn’t a biological human. What does the science say?
Watch all the videos in ERI’s Quick Response series here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsN8Ay8poS-It-dWSmblq1ZufOH-MVj1L
Pro-Life Apologetics: The Equal Rights Argument:
https://youtu.be/louYc-9cvE0
In his recent book, Beyond Roe: Why Abortion Should be Legal—Even if the Fetus is a Person, philosopher David Boonin develops a pro-choice argument that appeals to the legal case McFall v. Shimp. Here is Boonin’s description of this case:
Robert McFall was an asbestos worker from Pittsburgh. In 1978, he was diagnosed with aplastic anemia. The doctors told him he’d die if he didn’t get a bone marrow transplant. And they said he needed one soon. Preliminary tests for tissue compatibility were quickly conducted. Only one promising candidate was found: a cousin of McFall’s named David Shimp. Before additional tests could confirm his compatibility, though, Shimp had a change of heart. He refused to submit to further testing. And he declared that he wouldn’t give McFall any of his bone marrow even if it was needed to save McFall’s life. Running out of options at that point, McFall decided to sue Shimp. In the motion filed by his attorney, McFall asked the court to order Shimp to undergo the additional testing and, if the results were positive, to order Shimp to give him the bone marrow he needed.[1]
The judge ruled against McFall, deciding that the state had no right to force Shimp to let McFall use his bone marrow.
Charges of “pro-life hypocrisy” abound on the internet. Unfortunately, they also exist in professional philosophy journals in the form of “inconsistency arguments.” These take the following form:
P1: Were pro-life people consistent, they would X.
P2: Pro-life people fail to X.
C: Therefore, pro-life people are inconsistent.
Accompanying such arguments is an implicit understanding or explicit assertion that if the pro-life person does not change her beliefs or behaviors in order to be consistent, then her continued inconsistency counts as hypocrisy.
Editor’s Note 12/15/20: We’ve expanded the conclusion to clarify how we use thought experiments in conversation.
Editor’s Note 12/11/20: We’ve changed the original adjective about the worldview we discuss here from “weird” to “unorthodox”, which has a less negative connotation.
Here’s the bad news up front: sometimes you’re going to get stuck in a conversation about abortion because the other person has a strange worldview. This is what happens, for example, when talking to someone who defends act utilitarianism or moral relativism. Their worldview justifies abortion, and also a number of really problematic things, and the only way through is to help them see that the problems in their position are too much to merit defending.
In other words, your goal is to wake them up from a bad worldview by showing them why it makes ethics a nightmare.
By way of example, let’s examine a comment responding to one of our podcasts that was brought to our attention by a listener. There is a very odd philosophical position lurking behind scientific-sounding language, so I’m going to clarify the position and show why it’s problematic.