Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-bkjnw Total loading time: 0.24 Render date: 2021-10-16T02:43:17.461Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Article contents

The Paternalistic Argument against Abortion1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Abstract

A dominant trend in the philosophical literature on abortion has been concerned with the question of whether the fetus has moral status and how such a status might or might not conflict with women's liberties. However, a new and powerful trend against abortion requires philosophical examination. We refer to this trend as the paternalistic argument (PA). In a nutshell, this argument holds that, insofar as motherhood is a constitutive end of women's well‐being, abortion harms women; thus, abortion is wrong and should be prohibited, restricted, or avoided when possible regardless of the moral status of the fetus. In this article we undertake three tasks. First, we analyze four variations of this reasoning: what we call the Kantian PA, the Aristotelian PA, the Catholic Church PA, and the Psychological PA. Second, we show how some public policies that regulate or prohibit abortion around the world are now in fact following paternalistic justifications and imposing distinctive paternalistic restrictions (hard, soft, or libertarian); we refer to these policies as “the new abortion laws.” Finally, we argue that both the four paternalistic arguments presented and the new abortion laws are at times ill‐intentioned, comprehensive in nature and thus unsuited for guiding public policy, empirically flawed, or else unjustified.

Type
Articles
Information
Hypatia , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , Winter 2018 , pp. 22 - 39
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alcorn, Randy. 2000. Pro life answers to pro choice arguments. New York: Multnomah Books.Google Scholar
Anteproyecto de ley. 2013. Anteproyecto de ley orgánica para la protección de la vida del concebido y de los derechos de la mujer embarazada. Ministerio de Justicia, Spain. http://www.unav.edu/documents/58292/004aaf94-5e5a-4a14-84a2-4ae8574b387a (accesed October, 2015).Google Scholar
Boonin, David. 2003. A defense of abortion. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Burguess, J. A., and Tawia, S. A. 1996. When did you first begin to feel it? Locating the beginning of human consciousness. Bioethics 10 (1): 126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR). 2015. Mandatory waiting periods and biased counseling requirements in central and eastern Europe. https://www.reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civicactions.net/files/documents/CRR_Fact%20Sheet_Abortion_MWP%20and%20Biased%20Counseling_CEE_Final_0.pdf (accessed December 12, 2015).Google Scholar
Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR). 2016. Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. https://www.reproductiverights.org/case/whole-womans-health-v-hellerstedt (accessed June 24, 2017).Google Scholar
Dadlez, E. M., and Andrews, William. 2010. Post‐abortion syndrome: Creating an affliction. Bioethics 24 (9): 445–52.Google ScholarPubMed
Davis, Nancy. 1984. Abortion and self‐defense. Philosophy and Public Affairs 13 (3): 175207.Google ScholarPubMed
De Marneffe, Peter. 2006. Avoiding paternalism. Philosophy and Public Affairs 34 (1): 6894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denis, Lara. 2008. Animality and agency: A Kantian approach to abortion. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 76 (1): 117–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiSilvestro, Russell. 2010. Human capacities and moral status. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donagan, Alan. 1977. The theory of morality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, Gerald. 1972. Paternalism. The Monist 56 (1): 6484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Editorial Board. 2015. Closing off abortion rights. New York Times, June 11.Google Scholar
Ellison, Marcia A. 2003. Authoritative knowledge and single women's unintentional pregnancies, abortions, adoption, and single motherhood: Social stigma and structural violence. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 17 (3): 322–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feinberg, Joel. 1984. Potentiality, development, and rights. In The problem of abortion, ed. Feinberg, Joel. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Feinberg, Joel. 1986. Harm to self: The moral limits of the criminal law, Vol. III. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fergusson, David M., John Horwood, L., and Ridder, Elizabeth M. 2006. Abortion in young women and subsequent mental health. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 47 (1): 1624.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garea, Fernando. 2012. Gallardón: La maternidad libre hace a las mujeres auténticamente mujeres. El País, March 7.Google Scholar
George, Robert, and Tollefsen, Christopher. 2008. Embryo: A defense of human life. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Faye D. 1989. Contested lives: The abortion debate in an American community. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Grisez, Germain. 1970. Abortion: The myths, the realities, and the arguments. New York: Corpus Books.Google Scholar
Gutmann, Amy, and Thompson, Dennis. 2004. Why deliberative democracy? Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, Jack. 2006. A brief history of misogyny: The world's oldest prejudice. London: Constable and Robinson.Google Scholar
Hurst, Jane. 1983. The history of abortion in the Catholic church: The untold story. Washington: Catholics for a Free Choice.Google Scholar
Hursthouse, Rosalind. 1991. Virtue theory and abortion. Philosophy and Public Affairs 20 (3): 223–46.Google ScholarPubMed
Husak, Douglas. 2003. Legal paternalism. In The Oxford handbook of practical ethics, ed. LaFollette, Hugh. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Husak, Douglas. 2012. Paternalism. In The Routledge companion to philosophy of law, ed. Marmor, A.New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ivey, Rebecca E. 2008. Destabilizing discourses: Blocking and exploiting a new discourse at work in Gonzalez v. Carhart. Virginia Law Review 94 (6): 1451–508.Google Scholar
Kamm, Frances M. 1992. Creation and abortion: A study in moral and legal philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1997. Lectures on ethics, ed. Heath, Peter. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 2006. The metaphysics of morals. In Immanuel Kant: Practical Philosophy, ed. Gregor, Mary J.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kollar, Eszter, and Loi, Michelle. 2015. Prenatal equality of opportunity. Journal of Applied Ethics 32 (1): 3549.Google Scholar
Kumar, Anuradha, Hessini, Leila, and Mitchell, Ellen M. H. 2009. Conceptualizing abortion stigma. Culture, Health & Sexuality: An International Journal for Research, Intervention and Care 11 (6): 625–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ley Orgánica 2/2010. 2010. Sobre salud sexual e interrupción voluntaria del embarazo. Boletín Oficial del Estado 55/I pp. 21001, Spain.Google Scholar
Little, Margaret Olivia. 1999. Abortion, intimacy, and the duty to gestate. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 2 (3): 295312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marquis, Don. 1989. Why abortion is immoral. Journal of Philosophy 86 (4): 183202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McClain, Linda. 2006. The place of families: Fostering capacity, equality, and responsibility. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
McTernan, Emily. 2015. Should fertility treatment be state funded? Journal of Applied Philosophy 32 (3): 227–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. 2010. On liberty and other writings, ed. Collini, Stephan. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Morowitz, Harold, and Terfil, James. 1992. The facts of life: Science and the abortion controversy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Noonan, John T. 1977. An almost absolute value in history. In The morality of abortion, legal and historical perspectives, ed. Noonan, J.Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Quong, Jonathan. 2011. Liberalism without perfection. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 2005. Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Raz, Joseph. 1986. The morality of freedom. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reardon, David. 1987. Aborted women: Silent no more. Westchester, Ill.: Crossway.Google Scholar
Report of the South Dakota task force to study abortion (RSDTF). 2005. Submitted to the Governor and legislature of South Dakota. http://www.lc.org/attachments/SD_abortion_rpt.pdf (accessed December 12, 2015).Google Scholar
Rieder, Travis. 2015. Procreation, abortion, and the contours of obligation. Journal of Applied Philosophy 32 (3): 293309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Gailet al. 2009. Is there an abortion trauma syndrome? Critiquing the evidence. Harvard Review of Psychiatry 17 (4): 269–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robles, Frances. 2015. State legislatures put up flurry of roadblocks to abortion. New York Times, May 8.Google Scholar
Sanz, Luis Ángel. 2012. Gallardón: La libertad de maternidad hace a las mujeres auténticamente mujeres. El mundo, March 27.Google Scholar
Siegel, Reva B. 2008. Dignity and the politics of protection: Abortion restrictions under Casey/ Carhart. Yale Law Journal 117 (8): 1694–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suk, Jeannie. 2010. The trajectory of trauma: Bodies and minds of abortion discourse. Columbia Law Review 110 (5): 1193–252.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass, and Thaler, Richard. 2008. Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New York: Penguin Group.Google Scholar
Thomson, Judith Jarvis. 1971. A defense of abortion. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1 (1): 4766.Google Scholar
Tooley, Michael. 1984. In defense of abortion and infanticide. In The Problem of Abortion, ed. Feinberg, Joel. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Warren, Mary Ann. 2000. Moral status. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, B. 1993. Does the fetus have a right to life? Journal of Social Philosophy 24 (1): 123–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The Paternalistic Argument against Abortion1
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The Paternalistic Argument against Abortion1
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The Paternalistic Argument against Abortion1
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *