Abortion Ethics: Noonan vs. Thomson

J. T. Noonan, Jr. – “An Almost Absolute Value in History”

• Human life commences at conception.
• This life warrants moral protection given its unique human genetic code from conception.
• Abortion is almost always morally wrong as a fetus constitutes a human with moral significance.
• Viability, consciousness, or social acceptance are unreliable determinants of personhood.
• Post-conception, there exists no non-arbitrary line for moral distinction, requiring the fetus be treated as a person with rights.

Judith Jarvis Thomson – “A Defense of Abortion”

• Even if a fetus is a person, it does not inherently have the right to use the pregnant individual's body to survive.
• Abortion can be morally permissible, especially in cases of rape, threat to the pregnant person's life, or lack of consent to pregnancy.
• Bodily autonomy is a strong moral principle, supported by thought experiments like the Violinist and people-seeds analogies.
• Forcing someone to remain pregnant is not morally required, even if the fetus is a person.

Mary Anne Warren – “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion”

• A fetus lacks key characteristics of personhood, such as consciousness and reasoning and is therefore not a person in the moral sense.
• Abortion is always morally permissible due to fetuses not having moral rights.
• A person possesses functional traits like consciousness, communication, and reasoning.
• Fetuses do not meet the criteria for personhood, thus excluding them from the moral community.
• Even if a fetus has some moral value, it does not outweigh the rights of the pregnant individual.

Don Marquis – “An Argument That Abortion is Wrong”

• Abortion is wrong because it deprives a fetus of a valuable future.
• Killing deprives an individual of a "future like ours," including experiences, relationships, and goals.
• A fetus possesses the potential for this future.
• Abortion is morally equivalent to killing a person.
• Avoids debates on personhood by basing the argument on the value of life's future.

James Rachels – “Active and Passive Euthanasia”

• There is no moral difference between active euthanasia (directly causing death) and passive euthanasia (allowing to die).
• If passive euthanasia is morally acceptable, so should active euthanasia; it may even be more humane in certain situations.
• The intention and suffering involved matter more than the method, and killing is not inherently worse than letting die.
• The Smith and Jones example illustrates that letting die can be as morally reprehensible as killing depending on circumstances.
• The distinction between active and passive euthanasia is often rooted in moral confusion.
• Active euthanasia may be morally preferable if the goal is to reduce suffering.

Daniel Callahan – “When Self-Determination Runs Amok”

• Legalizing euthanasia, especially active voluntary euthanasia, is morally wrong and socially perilous, despite being based on personal choice.
• Individual self-determination (autonomy) is insufficient to justify euthanasia.
• Euthanasia crosses a moral boundar, involving someone intentionally killing another, which exceeds medicine's proper role.
• Allowing euthanasia risks abuse and a slippery slope, particularly among vulnerable populations.
• Suffering is inherent in life, and medicine should focus on healing, not killing.
• Euthanasia is not solely a private matter; it impacts societal values and could diminish respect for life under the guise of compassion.

J. S. Mill – On Liberty, Chapter 2: “Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion”

• Freedom of thought and expression is essential to truth, progress, and individuality; silencing any opinion is dangerous.
• Society should not suppress opinions, even if most find them offensive or false.
• Suppressed opinions might be true.
• Even if false, opinions may contain a partial truth.
• Accepted opinions must be challenged to remain meaningful.
• Suppressing ideas leads to intellectual stagnation and conformity without understanding.
• Liberty should only be restricted to prevent harm to others ("harm principle").
• Offending feelings is insufficient to silence speech.

Ronald Dworkin – “Is There a Right to Pornography?”

• There is a right to pornography due to freedom of expression.
• Freedom of expression must protect even offensive material to treat people as equals in a free society.
• Defends the legal right to produce and access pornography, even if it's immoral or degrading.
• Laws should not be based on majority moral disapproval.
• Moral disagreement is inevitable and government should not take sides.
• Banning pornography based on its message is viewpoint discrimination.
• Censorship of pornography is wrong because free speech protections must be consistent for unpopular views.