Dr Matthew Flannagan, a New Zealand based Ethicist who researches and publishes on issues around feticide (the killing of fetuses), wrote this very accessible critique demonstrating philosophical errors of reasoning in the backstreet abortion argument….

OK, well they shouldn’t It’s a silly argument as you have pointed out. At best it should be presented as a positive consequence of legalised abortion.

The appeal of this ‘argument’ is obvious. It’s superficially convincing for many and avoids the advocate of abortion having to advance the core belief; that a foetus is something of less value than a baby or a child.

Well the figures don’t necessarily support this claim ( the figures actually show that “dangerous” illegal abortions began to decline a long time before decriminalistion… Much more is needed to get a sensible ethical conclusion.

OK, I’ll take your word. Clearly there are many factors which could have caused the decline (e.g. legal abortion available in neighbouring country (UK, Ireland for example), practice leading legislation, customers of illegal abortion becoming better informed and seeking out a better service, etc).

It’s pointless trying to corner people on a morality argument, as there’s no absolute morality. If you believe that abortion up to a certain period is OK, and you’re honest with yourself about what that means for the status of a foetus, then you won’t be convinced by someone pointing out an inconsistency in your morality. Your morality is defined with that inconsistency built-in. Of course some people believe that their morality is based on an absolute morality and they would be responsive to such an approach. But those people probably don’t need convincing anyway.

Thanks for replying.

cheers

Malcolm

Here we disagree, I have heard people argue precisely this on numerous occasions. I attended a presentation by a member of the abortion supervisory committee where this argument was put forward , was on a TV show where the journalist pushed this line of argument. The argument has been noted in the literature by people like Mary Anne Warren, Peter Singer, ( who notes it is highly influential and advocated by the Candian Royal Commision) Baruch Brody, Frank Beckwith and numerous others.

but as a consideration it is sufficient to know that dangerous illegal abortions occur when there is no legal alternative.

Well the figures don’t necessarily support this claim ( the figures actually show that “dangerous” illegal abortions began to decline a long time before decriminalistion and had almost ceased by the time the law had changed) but even if they did, this fact by itself is of no relevance. We know that dangerous illegal driving occurs when we build highways, no one thinks this proves anything about the morality of highways. Much more is needed to get a sensible ethical conclusion.
.-= My last blog-post ..Religious Restraint and Public Policy: Part I =-.

As you could have pointed out in a single paragraph, that is at best a self-serving argument.

The problems of illegal abortion are just another factor to weigh up when considering the merits or otherwise of legalised abortion. It matters not that illegal abortion doesn’t directly harm women, as you have noted, but as a consideration it is sufficient to know that dangerous illegal abortions occur when there is no legal alternative.