Posted on August 29, 2022.

Classic Philosophers on Abortion and Abortion Law

Here is a set of quotes from ancient and modern philosophers that are either about the ethics and laws of abortion or are relevant to same.

• Plato, Republic Book V (c. 375 BCE)

We begin with two quotes from Plato approving infanticide and one quote from his student Aristotle who supports abortion in cases in which couples have had too many children.

"... the children of inferior parents, or any child of the others that is born defective, they will hide in a secret and unknown place, as is appropriate." (460c)

"Having received instructions about not having incestuous sex, they should be very careful not to let a single fetus see the light of day, but if one is conceived and forces its way to the light, they must deal with it in the knowledge that no nurture is available for it." (461c)

• Aristotle, Politics 7.16  (c. 350 BCE)

“...when couples have children in excess, let abortion be procured before sense and life have begun; what may or may not be lawfully done in these cases depends on the question of life and sensation.”

• Thomas Hobbes, Elements of Law, 23:8 (1651)

As we move 2,000 years later to the philosophers of the 17th century, Thomas Hobbes argues that infanticide and (by implication) abortions are morally justifiable acts.

“[From the time of their birth] children are in most absolute subjection [to their parents].  And the parents may alienate them, that is, assign his or her dominion, by selling, or giving them, in adoption or servitude to others, or may pawn them for hostages, kill them for rebellion or sacrifice them for peace, by the law of nature, when he or she, in his or her conscience, think it to be necessary.”

• John Locke, Second Treatise of Government (1689)

Later in the 17th century, John Locke provides some backing for the contemporary claim that women have a natural right to make decisions about what happens in and to their bodies.  We assume that the word "man" in the first quote below (27) is synonymous with "free person" and that the word "free" (57) applies only to humans who qualify as being "under the law."  Hence, neither fetuses nor young children have property in their own person.

But before we jump to any conclusions about Locke endorsing a right  to abort a fetus, the quote in (58) seems to muddy the waters by raising two questions: "Aren't fetuses also in an 'imperfect state of childhood'?" and "If so, doesn't this classification obligate parents to take care of their fetus during pregnancy?"

“…every man has property in his own person, this nobody has any right to but himself .” (27)

"... without the use of reason, [children are] not presently under that law; and this law being promulgated or made known by reason only, he that has not come to the use of his reason, cannot be said to be under this law...and are not presently free." (57)

"The power, then that parents have over their children, arises from that duty which is incumbent on them, to take care of their off-spring, during the imperfect state of childhood." (58)

• Immanuel Kant   Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals  (1785)

The Categorical Imperative says "Act only according to the maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."  The question for Kant is whether the maxim "It is morally right to abort a fetus" can become a universal law.  It is not clear how Kant would answer. Here are three articles that argue for opposing answers.

"Abortion and Kant's Formula of Universal Law," by Lara Denis Canadian Journal of Philosophy Volume 37, Number 4 (December 2007)   pp. 547-580

“A Kantian Approach to Abortion”, by R.M. Hare, in M. Bayles & K. Henley (eds), Right Conduct, New York: Random House.

“A Kantian Defense of Abortion Rights with Respect for Intrauterine Life” by Bertha Alvarez Manninen, Diametros, no. 39 (March 2014) pp.70-92.

• John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism (1863), and On Liberty (1859)

In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill writes that he is concerned that majority rule in a democracy might be used to suppress the liberty of a minority.  His solution is The Harm-to-Others Principle, which says in part, "...the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."  Although Mill never discussed abortion law, we can surmise that aborting the fetus is a voluntary act that does no harm to others. Therefore, it would be an abuse of political power to prohibit abortion, even if the act of aborting a fetus might harm the pregnant woman (as often happened in the 19th century), or if abortion is generally regarded as immoral by religious communities.

The foundation for the Harm Principle is the Principle of Utility or "the greatest happiness principle." It says that "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness and wrong as they tend to promote unhappiness."   Creating or overturning a law is an action that has consequences.  Hence, it is an action that must be limited by the Harm Principle if the ultimate end or consequence is to bring about more happiness than unhappiness (i.e., more good than bad) in the political body.

Utilitarians must gather data from observation and experience that will determine the amount of happiness and unhappiness that has been and will be caused in the general population by creating or denying women the right to choose. The results of this empirical task will be presented to the legislators.  Their focus should only be on the known consequences of a proposed law.  Appeals to Locke's theory of natural rights or Kant's categorical imperative are irrelevant to making this determination.

I must warn student essayists that the above remarks represent only one way of interpreting and applying Mill's principles. Other philosophers have interpreted the harm and utility principles to come to quite different conclusions about abortion law.

"J.S. Mill and the Pro-Life Cause," by Christopher Tollefson, Public Discourse (November 17, 2014).

“Ethical Theory and Utilitarianism”, by R.M. Hare, in H.D. Lewis (ed.), Contemporary British Philosophy 4th Series, London: Allen & Unwin; reprinted in 1989a: 212–30.

A last word for philosophy students

There is much more that has been written about abortion law than I have mentioned in this newsletter.  A brief search of the internet on abortion law will turn up hundreds if not thousands of books and articles on the topic.  You might want to limit your initial search to the work that has had the greatest impact on philosophical thinking.  I recommend articles and bibliographies in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as your starting point.