Abortion is not a simple topic, as it forces a person to dive quite deep into their normative and applied ethical theories. Given the complexity, I would like to propose my thoughts on and solutions to typical abortion ethical considerations and seek the community’s opinions on the matter.

Firstly, I would like expose some of my prerequisite thinking towards tackling this issue (of abortion), so as to provide as much clarity as I can to the reader. Since each of the prerequisites could be entire discussion boards themselves, I will only briefly elaborate on them and leave it up to the reader to invoke any suspicions, contentions, or otherwise grievances they may have with them (and I will be more than happy to go into further detail).

Prerequisite one: Normative Idealism

I find that when one is evaluating a scenario through the lens of morality they should try to intuit, to the best of their ability, whether the act progresses, regresses, or neutrally impacts one’s moral ideal(s). By ideal, I mean an absolute moral principle, which is the unwavering goal of applied ethics. P.s., this is a form of deontology. I think that general moral principles, for pragmatic purposes, can be derived imperfectly from the ideal(s), but that the ideal(s) are what the moral focus should be on.

For me, I find that my ideal is that one should strive towards a world in which there is maximal sovereignty of life. By “maximal”, I do not wish to allude to utilitarianism, as I disagree with that normative ethical theory, but rather to distinguish it from the self-refuting view of achieving “absolute sovereignty of life”—as the absolute sovereignty of a life entails the violation of sovereignty of another.

Prerequisite two: Epistemic Conservatism

I think that one should take their beliefs and intuitions about reality at face value (as true) until sufficient counter evidence is presented that demonstrates their unreliability. Thusly, if a situation strikes a person as seemingly A, then they should, all else being equal, hold A until there is some sort of counter evidence that suggests its unreliability.

Gameplan:

Within the conversation of abortion, I am assessing the most basic abortion scenarios in relation to some general moral principles, of which imperfectly align with the ideal (that was expounded in prerequisite one), that I teased out of intuitions about other scenarios (some of which I will share in this post).

First Basic Scenario: Consensual Sex

In the case of consensual sex, I find that I am pro-life; for a person who is culpable for the condition of a life thereby has the duty to amend the situation, and a woman who consensually has sex is culpable (along with the man, of course) for the condition of the new life (in the event that she becomes pregnant). Amending the situation entails, by my lights, that what is the most feasible and reasonable means of amending the situation (viz., protecting and saving the life in this case) must be taken. This means that one cannot abort in this situation, as that is the antithesis of amending the situation of the condition of that new life.

I think “culpability entailing duty to resolve the situation” is a very useful, and widely accepted, general principle. For example, if I were to damage someone’s property or damage them, then I have to legally do whatever is necessary to amend the situation: I cannot just throw my hands in the air and not consent.

Second Basic Scenario: Unconsensual Sex

In the case of unconsensual sex, culpability is a principle that is completely useless (quite obviously), so there must be some other factor (or factors) involved that determine it as either wrong or right (i.e., progressing, regressing, or neutrally affecting the moral ideal). Long story short, I am pro-choice, as I think that consent matters in the case of actions which (1) are not related to any sort of culpability and (2) have the potential for significant unwanted bodily modifications. I do not think, on the contrary, that consent (just like ‘right to life’) as an absolute principle works, as there are clear scenarios to me where I don’t care if one consents or not: they have a de facto obligation to save the person’s life. For example, if it is just me and a little kid at a pool and that kid starts drowning in the deep end, then I cannot just say “Oh, well, I can swim, but I don’t really want to risk getting an ear infection”. My consent is completely irrelevant because there is no reasonable inference of significant unwanted bodily modifications. Whereas, for example, if I couldn’t swim (and thusly would likely drown with the kid), then I could not consent to jumping in and saving them but, rather, would still be obligated to find someone to help them. Likewise, this is why (I would argue) we don’t blame anyone who doesn’t consent to running into a burning building (as it is reasonably inferred that they could have significant unwanted bodily modifications), whereas we do blame a firefighter if they get on the scene and chicken out (since they consented to doing exactly that: running into burning buildings).

Thusly, a rape victim has the option to abort or not, because she is not (1) culpable for the condition of that new life and (2) pregnancy reasonably poses the potential for significant unwanted bodily modifications.

Third Basic Scenario: Incest

I think that this one is mostly derivable from the previous two (depending on if it is consensual or not) but with the extra punishment (irregardless) of both parties involved since incest greatly decreases the likely quality of life conceived from it.

Fourth Basic Scenario: Consensual Sex + Endangerment of the Mother

Although I think this is an unpopular opinion, I find that the mother has the duty to carry on with the pregnancy even if their life is endanger (unless the fetus’ life is also likely to perish as well), for she is culpable for the condition of this life. This is no different, to me, than if I were to go stab an innocent person in the heart, they get rushed to the ER, I get arrested, and I am the only person that can save them if I were to give them my heart: I am obligated to give my heart, since I am culpable for their condition and the only feasible means of amending this particular situation (as stipulated in the hypothetical) is to give them my heart.

Fifth Basic Scenario: Unconsensual Sex + Endangerment of the Mother

Being pro-choice in the case of unconsensual sex, I think that the mother, in this case, has the option to contemplate (for a reasonable amount of time) whether to abort or not in light of the news that there is a strong chance she may die or be abnormally impacted by the pregnancy.

What are your guys’ thoughts?