Final Blog Post Section #2

Morality of Abortion and People with Cognitive Disabilities

 Judith Jarvis Thomson

Judith Jarvis Thompson was born in 1929 in New York. She studied philosophy at Barnard College, Cambridge University, and got her PhD at Columbia University. She moved on to teach at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and is most famously known for her work in ethics and her attempts to make complicated moral problems easier to understand through thought experiments, one being the example of the unwanted violinist. This idea was to show that if a woman got pregnant even after using contraception, she had no moral duty to go through with having the baby, meaning there was nothing morally wrong with her having an abortion. She believed, in that circumstance, that having the baby was an act of charity, not a moral duty. She believed abortion should be looked at from the woman’s perspective, not the fetus’s.

So, the Unwanted Violinist example. There is a famous violinist who has a kidney problem. The only way he can survive is by being plugged into a person who shares his rare blood type. However, you have the same blood type. One day, you wake up to find that doctors have attached him to your kidneys while you were asleep. Thomson argues that you have no duty to keep him plugged into you, even though, by removing the tubes, he will die. Likewise, she applies this same logic to a woman who got pregnant even while using contraception, saying that the growing fetus inside her does not have the automatic right to her body. A lot of people thought that if they could prove that the fetus is a person, then that would make abortion illegal, but Thomson’s point disagrees with that, saying that even if the fetus is a person, it does not settle the question because that doesn’t give them the right to a person’s body.

Peter Singer
Quick background

If you want to read more information about Thomson and Singer, you can check out chapters 37 and 40 in A Little History of Philosophy by Nigel Warburton: https://philocyclevl.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/nigel-warburton-a-little-history-of-philosophy-yale-university-press-2011.pdf

Peter Singer was born in 1946 in Melbourne. He is an Australian philosopher who has taught at major universities, such as Princeton University. His ideas are based on utilitarianism, and a big credit to him is helping shape the animal rights movement with his 1975 book, Animal Liberation. One of his main messages is that you could almost certainly have a genuine influence on other people’s lives, and you should. Singer has touched on many topics, such as the idea of saving the drowning kid in front of you but being ignorant to the dying children in impoverished areas around the world, and he’s also spoken out on many controversial ideas, such as mercy killing people who are in an irreversible persistent vegetative state, and on abortion. So, according to Singer, to be ethical, we must all be “persons” according to moral guidelines. However, not all humans are “persons”.

Singer says that for one to be considered a “person” and deserve moral treatment, they must be self-aware.  With this in mind, Singer states that no newborn infants are “persons”, and some people with lifelong cognitive disabilities never become “persons” at any time in their lives.  In addition, he claims some people who acquire cognitive disabilities through injury, Alzheimer’s, or some other means stop being “persons”.  Singer believes that killing a “non-person”, even if it is human, does not carry the same moral weight as killing a “person”.  According to Singer, it may be alright to kill infants because they are not “persons”, they have no interest in staying alive, and it’s only superstition that makes us think that killing them is intrinsically wrong.  Now he is still quick to say that it is still wrong to kill most infants, for some other reasons.  For example, killing the infant would, in most cases, upset the parents.  And, in situations where the parents don’t want the child, other couples/individuals would like to adopt the child, so it should not be killed, but instead put up for adoption.  But on the other hand, infants with known disabilities, especially cognitive, he believes, do not bring the same amount of happiness into the lives of the parents.  The very fact that someone is disabled means that he or she will have an unhappier life than other people.  Therefore, the reasoning not to kill a normal, non-disabled infant does not apply to a disabled infant.  Singer believes that parents should legally still be able to have their infant killed up to 28 days after birth.  Therefore, parents could then have non-disabled replacements, and the organs of the disabled infant could serve as transplants to other infants who could grow up to be non-disabled.

My personal views

Starting with Judith’s beliefs and her example of the “Unwanted Violinist”, I disagree with her logic.  As a Christian, my views on abortion are the same in any situation: I don’t think it’s ever the right answer.  However, from a non-Christian perspective, I can understand why people would find it acceptable in some circumstances.  For example, in Thomson’s example, if the circumstances of the conception were from sexual assault, then I can sort of understand why people would say you shouldn’t be forced to have the child when you never even wanted to have sex in the first place, and it was forced upon you.  However, my answer is that two wrongs don’t make a right, and even though it’s a terrible thing that has occurred, you can still find something good coming out of it.  There are so many amazing people on this planet who have done amazing things who were conceived in rape, and if they had been aborted, they obviously wouldn’t have been here to do all they’ve done.  It really is a difficult subject, though, and I feel for anyone who ever has to go through something like that.  

On the other hand, Judith also mentioned that if a woman conceives even if contraception is used, she should still have the choice to abort.  I strongly disagree with this.  Ultimately, anytime you have sex, there is a chance/risk of conceiving.  If you are not ready to have a child, then you shouldn’t be having sex.  There are going to be results/consequences from your actions, and the baby isn’t at fault; the two consenting adults are; therefore, it’s not fair for the baby to be punished for their actions.  I think in this situation, if you happen to conceive by accident and are not in a situation to be able to provide for a child, then you should look to adoption to find a couple who may not be able to have kids of their own or who are looking to adopt, and give them the chance to have the kid instead of just killing it.  But again, if you find yourself in a situation where you are definitely not prepared to have a kid, then maybe you shouldn’t be having sex.

Now leaning into Singer’s ideas, I also strongly disagree with him, even more so than Thomson. Some of Singer’s ideas are just dehumanizing and sort of privileged.  He’s blessed to have been born without a cognitive disability, but that does not give him the right to play God and choose that people who are born with those disabilities shouldn’t even be considered “persons” or on the same level as humans.  Colossians 1:16-17 and Genesis 1:26-27 both reference that God is the creator of all things, and all things are created through him.  We, mankind, are made by Him and in His image.  Considering we are all created by God, I believe we don’t have the right to take the life of someone he’s created, since it is His creation and not ours.  We don’t get to just identify people as less than us because of a condition.  They may not be capable of everything non-disabled people are, but that doesn’t lessen their value as a human.  I have a family member and friends with family members who have cognitive disabilities, but despite their situation, they still live enjoyable lives and get to do and experience lots of amazing things, and the people I know who take care of them love doing so, and it brings them great joy.  So I think Singer is also wrong in saying that children with cognitive disabilities bring less joy to their parents.  Also, his cons to abortion are strictly based on the effects of the abortion, and whether the parents grieve it or other families do, not on the fact that it is killing an innocent baby.  Whether or not a baby is going to be born with a cognitive disability, that baby is still made in the image of God, and I don’t believe anyone has the right to take away the life of that baby.  In Jeremiah 1:5, God says he knew Jeremiah before He even formed him in the womb.  Psalm 139:13-18 talks about the intimacy of God forming us in the womb.  And Proverbs 6:16-17 says that the Lord hates hands that shed innocent blood, and in my eyes, a baby in the womb is innocent and has done no wrong, therefore it does not deserve to be killed.

Relating to the morality of cognitively disabled people, here’s an interesting article I found: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cognitive-disability/

I also believe that no matter how disabled a person is, God doesn’t count them as less and He never leaves them.  https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/it-is-insane-to-kill-humans-because-of-their-cognitive-abilities

Conclusion

Ultimately, my Christian views are the standards for my views on everything, including abortion and the morality of killing those with severe cognitive disabilities, and because of that, I will always stand on the side of being pro-life.  However, it really is a complicated debate, and I understand why there is so much controversy on the topic, and I really do feel for people who are put in difficult situations with pregnancy or disabilities.  I think the best way to approach these conversations is to listen and be understanding, no matter what your take is, because each person has their reasoning for their views, and no one is trying to (most aren’t) be wicked and cruel; they are just trying to be rational and find the right answers.