Abortion and Personhood: What the Moral Dilemma Is Really About | Glenn Cohen | Big Think

Summary

The transcript delves into the complexities surrounding abortion, particularly in the context of Roe v. Wade and the moral and legal debates that followed. It examines the distinction between being 'alive,' 'human,' and 'a person,' exploring various philosophical theories on what defines personhood. The discussion includes the famous thought experiment by Judith Jarvis Thompson about bodily autonomy and the right to terminate a pregnancy. The argument also extends to stem cell research, where embryos, not being gestated, present unique ethical challenges. The transcript highlights the nuanced moral and legal questions in bioethics.

Takeaways

• ⚖️ Roe v. Wade (1970s) established a woman's right to abortion, introducing the trimester framework, with first-trimester abortions allowed and third-trimester abortions heavily restricted.
• 🛑 The decision faced immediate backlash, and the past several decades have seen attempts to criminalize abortion through various means without directly overturning the ruling.
• 🤔 A central question in abortion ethics is whether fetuses are 'persons,' which requires exploring the definition of personhood.
• 🔍 Distinguishing between 'human,' 'alive,' and 'person' is critical, as something can be alive or human without being considered a person.
• 🐕 Some theories of personhood focus on capacities, such as complex thought, future planning, or the ability to feel pain, while others emphasize continuity of identity over time.
• 🧠 The debate extends to entities like embryos, which may not yet have certain capacities but have the potential to develop them, raising the question of whether potentiality confers personhood.
• 💭 There are complex ethical questions about beings that once had personhood capacities but lost them (e.g., brain-dead individuals). Do they remain persons?
• 👩‍⚖️ Some philosophers argue that even if fetuses are persons, abortion can still be justified due to the mother's rights, as seen in Judith Jarvis Thompson's famous violinist analogy.
• 🎻 The violinist analogy suggests that, like unplugging from a famous violinist, a woman may have the right to terminate a pregnancy, even if the fetus is considered a person.
• 🧬 The ethical debate on stem cell research involves frozen embryos, with some arguing that embryos have fewer rights since they are not gestating and have lesser capacities compared to fetuses.

Q & A

What was the significance of the Roe v. Wade decision in the 1970s?

Roe v. Wade was a landmark decision in the United States that recognized a woman's right to have an abortion. It introduced the trimester framework, allowing abortions in the first trimester and making third-trimester abortions much more difficult.

How has Roe v. Wade been met over the last several decades?

Roe v. Wade was quickly met with backlash, leading to nearly 50 years of efforts to criminalize abortion through various legal methods without directly overturning the decision.

What is the difference between being alive, being human, and being a person, according to the speaker?

The speaker distinguishes between being alive, being human, and being a person. Something can be alive, like an animal, but not be a person. An entity can be human, such as an embryo, but may not yet qualify as a person, depending on certain capacities or rights attributed to personhood.

What are some common criteria used to define 'personhood'?

Personhood can be defined by various criteria, including the capacity to think complex thoughts, plan for the future, feel pain, or exhibit continuity of identity over time. Some believe personhood is tied to being a living human, while others emphasize specific capacities like consciousness or potential for future development.

What role does potentiality play in the debate about personhood and abortion?

Potentiality refers to whether an entity, like an embryo or fetus, has the potential to develop capacities associated with personhood. The debate hinges on whether this potential is enough to grant personhood status, or if actual capacities must already be present.

How does the thought experiment involving the world's most famous violinist relate to abortion?

Judith Jarvis Thompson's thought experiment compares a person connected to a violinist via a dialysis machine to a pregnant woman carrying a fetus. It argues that even if the fetus is a person, the mother may have the right to 'unplug' herself, as one might from the violinist, even if it leads to the person's death.

Why is the question of gestation important in the context of abortion?

The question of gestation is crucial because it pits the rights of the fetus against the rights of the pregnant woman. If the fetus is considered a person, abortion involves ending that person's life, but the woman's right to autonomy over her body may outweigh the fetus's rights.

How does the case of early embryos used for stem cell research differ from the abortion debate?

Early embryos used in stem cell research are not gestating inside a woman, so there is no competing right to stop gestation, as in abortion. This could make the case for prohibiting the destruction of embryos easier, but embryos may also lack many capacities associated with personhood.

What are the key metaphysical questions involved in determining if a fetus is a person?

Key metaphysical questions include defining what makes something a person, the role of potentiality versus actual capacities, and whether having had personhood in the past (as in the case of brain-dead individuals) or the potential for future personhood grants certain rights.

Why do some people argue that abortion is still justified even if a fetus is a person?

Some argue that even if a fetus is considered a person, abortion may still be justified because the pregnant woman has a stronger right to autonomy over her body, including the right to end a pregnancy, even if it results in the fetus's death.

Outlines

00:00

⚖️ Roe v. Wade and the Legal Landscape of Abortion

This paragraph delves into the 1970s landmark Roe v. Wade decision, which introduced the trimester framework for abortions in the United States. It allowed first-trimester abortions and significantly restricted third-trimester procedures. This ruling sparked a backlash, leading to decades of legal attempts to limit abortion rights without overturning Roe v. Wade. The focus shifts to the moral debate, asking whether fetuses are 'persons' and exploring the linguistic and philosophical nuances of personhood. It distinguishes between being alive, human, and being a 'person,' each with different moral and legal implications. Various theories about personhood, such as human capacity and the rights tied to personhood, are briefly explored.

05:02

🎻 The Violinist Thought Experiment and Abortion Ethics

This paragraph discusses Judith Jarvis Thompson’s famous thought experiment involving a person waking up connected to a dialysis machine supporting the life of the world’s most famous violinist. The scenario is an analogy for pregnancy, raising the question of whether one has the right to disconnect (abort) even if it results in the death of a person (fetus). The complexity of this argument is explored, including distinctions between consensual pregnancies and cases of rape. It also touches on how stem cell research and frozen embryos raise similar but distinct ethical questions, as no one is gestating the embryos, potentially making the case for their protection different from that of fetuses.

Keywords

💡Roe v. Wade

Roe v. Wade is a landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide. The decision introduced the trimester framework, which allowed for different levels of state regulation on abortion depending on the stage of pregnancy. It is central to the video as it set the legal precedent for abortion rights, sparking decades of political and legal backlash aimed at restricting or overturning the ruling.

💡Trimester Framework

The trimester framework was established by the Roe v. Wade decision and divides pregnancy into three stages, each with varying degrees of state interest in regulating abortion. The first trimester allows for abortions with minimal state interference, while the third trimester permits significant regulation, including bans, as long as exceptions are made for the life and health of the mother. This concept is crucial to understanding how abortion rights were legally structured following Roe v. Wade.

💡Personhood

Personhood refers to the status of being a person with moral and legal rights, particularly the right not to be killed or harmed without justification. The video discusses the complexities of defining personhood, particularly whether a fetus or embryo qualifies as a person. This concept is pivotal in debates over abortion and stem cell research, as the classification of fetuses and embryos as 'persons' would impact the legality and morality of abortion.

💡Capacity X View

The Capacity X View is a theory of personhood that suggests an entity must possess certain capacities, such as the ability to think complex thoughts or feel pain, to be considered a person. The video explores how this view contrasts with others that might define personhood simply based on being human or being alive. This concept is essential in evaluating whether a fetus or embryo, which may lack certain capacities, should be granted personhood.

💡Potentiality

Potentiality refers to the potential of an entity, such as a fetus or embryo, to develop certain capacities over time, like the ability to think or feel. The video discusses whether this potential alone is sufficient to grant personhood. The concept of potentiality is important in the ethical debates around abortion and stem cell research, as it raises questions about when and if potential life should be afforded legal rights.

💡Judith Jarvis Thompson

Judith Jarvis Thompson is a philosopher known for her famous thought experiment involving the 'world's most famous violinist,' used to argue for the permissibility of abortion even if the fetus is considered a person. In the video, her analogy illustrates the idea that a woman's right to bodily autonomy could outweigh the fetus's right to life. Thompson's argument is a critical component in philosophical discussions on abortion rights.

💡Stem Cell Research

Stem Cell Research involves the study and use of stem cells, often derived from early embryos, to develop medical treatments. The video touches on the ethical concerns surrounding the destruction of embryos for this purpose, particularly whether these embryos should be considered persons with rights. This concept is significant in bioethics, as it intersects with debates on personhood and the moral status of embryos.

💡Bioethics

Bioethics is the study of ethical issues emerging from advances in biology and medicine, particularly those involving life and death decisions, such as abortion and stem cell research. The video highlights bioethical considerations in determining personhood, the morality of abortion, and the use of embryos in research. This field is crucial for navigating the complex moral landscapes discussed in the video.

💡Moral Rights

Moral rights are the rights that an entity is believed to possess based on ethical principles, such as the right to life or the right not to be harmed. The video delves into whether fetuses or embryos have moral rights and how these rights might conflict with the rights of the mother. Understanding moral rights is key to analyzing the ethical arguments presented in the video regarding abortion.

💡Legal Backlash

Legal backlash refers to the political and legal efforts to challenge, restrict, or overturn the Roe v. Wade decision. The video mentions the sustained opposition to abortion rights that has shaped American legal and political landscapes for decades. This concept is essential for understanding the ongoing legal battles and changes in abortion laws in the U.S.

Highlights

Roe v. Wade introduced the trimester framework for abortions, allowing first trimester abortions and restricting third trimester ones.

The Roe v. Wade decision has faced 40-50 years of backlash with efforts to criminalize abortion in different ways.

A central moral question surrounding abortion is whether fetuses are considered 'persons,' which differs from being human or alive.

The concept of 'personhood' includes having moral or legal rights, including the right to not be killed or harmed without a strong justification.

Theories of personhood differ, with some arguing that being human equals being a person, while others focus on capacities like thinking or future orientation.

The 'capacity X' view suggests that being a person requires certain capacities, such as the ability to think or plan for the future.

Potentiality is a key issue, where something like a fetus or embryo could become a person but does not currently possess all the capacities of one.

The discussion on brain-dead individuals highlights the question of whether losing certain capacities makes one cease to be a person.

Even if fetuses are considered persons, some argue abortion is justified because a woman's right to stop gestating the fetus overrides the fetus's rights.

Judith Jarvis Thompson's famous violinist thought experiment argues that a woman may have the right to 'unplug' herself from a fetus, similar to unplugging from a person dependent on her body for survival.

Thompson's analogy is debated, with questions about whether all pregnancies are analogous to being kidnapped or whether it only applies to cases like rape.

The moral question of early embryos used for stem cell research differs from abortion, as no one is gestating the embryos, making the argument against destruction more straightforward.

Embryos in a lab may be seen as having even less personhood potential than fetuses, raising different ethical considerations.

Bioethicists use metaphysical reasoning to determine what makes someone or something a person, which is essential for evaluating abortion and stem cell ethics.

The complexity of these debates highlights that personhood, rights, and capacities are central to both the legal and moral arguments surrounding abortion and stem cell research.

Transcripts

In the 1970s we have the Roe v. Wade decision in the United States.

It was a decision relating to a woman's right to have an abortion.

It introduced the trimester framework.

It basically allowed first trimester abortions, made it very difficult to have third trimester

abortions.

And essentially this was really met very quickly thereafter with the sort of backlash.

And really the last 40/50 years of American history have more or less been a backlash

against Roe v. Wade and an attempt to kind of criminalize abortion in all sorts of interesting

ways without overturning the decision.

So that's kind of the legal playing field.

I mean we can talk about some of the specifics, but the more interesting question I think

is thinking about the morality of abortion.

And I'll say that I think abortion is an extremely difficult question.

So one of the first questions people have to think about is are fetuses persons?

And that's a very important linguistic question, persons.

I didn't say human beings.

I didn't say alive.

Those are three different issues.

Something can be alive but not be a person.

Your dog is a good example.

You love your dog.

It's a wonderful thing but it's not a person.

Something can be human and potentially not be a person.

Some people think the embryo, for example, before 14 days or stem cells being derived

are members of the human species but may not be a person.

So what do we mean by persons?

We mean something that has a certain set of moral and/or legal rights, most important

of which is a right against in viability.

They can't be killed or destroyed or harmed without very good reason.

And we have the attitude that we're all persons so we have an index case we're pretty clear

we're persons and the question is who else is a person?

Well to answer that you need to have a theory about what makes something a person.

And there are a few different kinds of theories you can have.

One could be just to say if X is living and a human being X is a person.

Now some people have problems with that.

So Peter Singer and some animal rights advocates, for example, think that that's a speciesist

attitude, that by saying human equals person it's problematic that we're excluding animals.

Instead we ought to have some criteria that looks at capacity.

So other people have sometimes what are called a capacity X view where they say in order

to be a person you have to have X capacity and then we have to fill in what X is.

Is it the ability to think complex thoughts, the ability to plan and look towards the future,

the ability to feel pain whether you understand it?

Is about continuity of an identity over time or is it merely being alive and breathing?

And some people think it's a single criteria, others think it's a compound criteria.

And then there are complex questions about what happens for things that have the potential

to have capacity X or had a capacity X but lost it.

So, for example, a fetus doesn't have the abilities, early fetus let's just say an embryo

just to make it very easy, an embryo before 14 days doesn't have the capacity to think

deep thoughts about the future or have future orientation.

I think that's pretty well accepted by everyone, but it certainly has the potential to do so.

And the question is is that enough?

What kind of theory or potentiality?

Hydrogen and oxygen each have the potential together to become water.

Does that mean that they are water?

They have the metaphysical properties of water.

Or do we require more of a kind of a potentiality something like in the natural course of things

they will become something?

The other difficult set of categories are things that once had the capacity but now

no longer have and perhaps never will again.

So those that are brain-dead, for example, are a good example.

They are certainly human beings.

Most cases they have been persons.

But now if your capacity for personhood how do you define personhood is something like

the capacity to think deep thoughts about the future or do you have future orientation,

these are entities that no longer have that capacity and we don't believe will have it

again.

Do they cease being persons at that point?

Let's just say that in order to understand whether a fetus or an early embryo, the kind

that are used for stem cell derivation, is a person.

You have to do a lot of metaphysical work in understanding what makes something a person

and why and what those capacities are.

Now even if you think something is a person that doesn't necessarily mean you've solved

the abortion problem.

So it's possible, although popular among philosophers not so popular in the political process, to

say fetuses are persons and yet abortion is still legal and justified.

How does that argument go?

The suggestion is that there is a right of another entity that has overcome whatever

interest the fetus has and that is the right particularly of the mother who is gestating

the fetus.

So they claim is yes a fetus is a person.

Yes abortion will cause the death of a person.

But that doesn't mean that abortion is wrong because a woman gestating the fetus has a

right to stop that gestating, even if it will result in the death of a person.

And the most famous versions of this argument comes from Judith Jarvis Thompson, a very

famous I thought experiment about the worlds most famous violinist.

And she says imagine you find yourself a heavy night of drinking; you got drunk; you blacked

out and you wake up the next morning and you find yourself a human dialysis machine hooked

up to the world's most famous violinist.

Nobody doubts the violinist is a person.

He's not only a person, a great person, the world's most famous violinist.

But she says don't you have the right to unplug yourself from that person even if it will

turn out that it will result in the death of the violinist?

And she says if you think the answer is yes then you think that even though the entity

is a person you may have a right to cause its death, a right to unplug itself.

And she analogizes that to the right of a mother to unplug herself from her fetus who

is a person.

Now there's lots of contestation about that thought experiment.

You might say you got drunk no fault of your own somebody kidnap you.

Is that really the situation of all women who become pregnant or is it the situation

only of women, for example, who are raped or who are impregnated in an unconscious state?

But this is just to show that there's some complexity.

Okay, one more point.

That is that the stem cell question looks different on in this regard.

Remember when we we're talking about embryos we're talking about embryos that are frozen

that are in a lab.

Nobody is gestating them.

If embryos have the rights of persons, unlike in the case of abortion because nobody has

a contrary right to stop gestating them, so you might actually think the argument for

prohibition against destroying early embryos is easier than the argument or prohibiting

abortion for this reason.

Now, on the flipside you might think the early embryos have even less of the capacity X,

whatever that is, than does the fetus.

But this is the way in which bioethicists and lawyers think about these problems.