Fairness, Care, and Abortion

Journal of Applied Philosophy 40 (4):658-675 (2023)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Only women can bear the burdens of gestating fetuses. That fact, I suggest, bears on the morality of abortion. To illustrate and explain this point, I frame my discussion around Judith Jarvis Thomson's classic defense of abortion and Gina Schouten's recent feminist challenge to Thomson's defense. Thomson argued that, even assuming that fetuses are morally equivalent to persons, abortions are typically morally permissible. According to Schouten's feminist challenge to Thomson, however, if fetuses are morally equivalent to persons, then abortions are typically morally impermissible because there is a collective moral obligation to care for the vulnerable. The consideration that is my topic, however, poses a problem for that feminist challenge to Thomson. There is reason to believe, I argue, that it is unfair that only women can bear the burdens of gestating fetuses. And, if that is unfair, it would undermine that feminist challenge to Thomson. I show, in other words, that there is a plausible and well‐motivated basis for believing that, even if fetuses are morally equivalent to persons and there is a collective obligation to care for the vulnerable, then abortions are nevertheless typically morally permissible. That is how fairness bears on the morality of abortion.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,774

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The parenthood argument.William Simkulet - 2017 - Bioethics 32 (1):10-15.
Is pregnancy really a good Samaritan act?Bruce P. Blackshaw - 2021 - Christian Bioethics 27 (2):158–168.
Abortion, Rights, and Cabin Cases.William Simkulet - 2022 - The New Bioethics 28 (4):315-326.
Three Problems with the Impairment Argument.William Simkulet - 2022 - Asian Bioethics Review 15 (2):169-179.
Thomson’s Samaritanism Constraint.Matthew Tedesco - 2007 - Philosophy in the Contemporary World 14 (2):112-126.
Thomson’s Samaritanism Constraint.Matthew Tedesco - 2007 - Philosophy in the Contemporary World 14 (2):112-126.
Moral Responsibility and the Wrongness of Abortion.C’Zar Bernstein & Paul Manata - 2019 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 44 (2):243-262.
Fetuses, Orphans, and a Famous Violinist.Gina Schouten - 2017 - Social Theory and Practice 43 (3):637-665.
The Two tragedies argument.William Simkulet - 2019 - Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (5):304-308.

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-05-13

Downloads
76 (#75,834)

6 months
23 (#666,848)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

David O'Brien
Harvard University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

A Theory of Justice: Revised Edition.John Rawls - 1999 - Harvard University Press.
A defense of abortion.Judith Jarvis Thomson - 1971 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 1 (1):47-66.
Equality and equal opportunity for welfare.Richard J. Arneson - 1989 - Philosophical Studies 56 (1):77 - 93.
Mortal Questions.Thomas Nagel - 1983 - Religious Studies 19 (1):96-99.

View all 23 references / Add more references