boos for boonin

Ethika Politika shared a video yesterday of an abortion debate at Pomona College between Dr. Patrick Lee, Franciscan University of Steubenville, and Dr. David Boonin, University of Colorado. In it, pro-choice Boonin argued that while fetuses may have a right to life, that is not to be equated with them having a right to life support. To try to explain this, he gave an analogy involving a patient in dire need of a bone marrow transplant. You are to imagine that you are, by mere chance, the only matching donor in the world for this particular patient, and thus wake up one morning to find yourself attached to a cumbersome marrow-drawing machine. You are told you must remain attached to this tubal contraption for nine months or else the patient will die. After describing this scenario, Boonin suggested that you are in no way morally required to remain connected. If you are feeling especially selfless and would like to stay attached to keep him alive, you certainly may, but you are not morally required to do so. Thus, Boonin argued, it follows that a woman is not morally required to "provide life support" to her unborn child for nine months, and can ethically choose to abort him or her if she so chooses.

A few moments before, Dr. Lee had put forth a straightforward, simple, and secular defense of the pro-life position. He used no fancy analogy or hypothetical. All he needed to do was explain that the unborn is a human being according to undisputed biological and embryological evidence, and pair this with the argument that there is no relevant difference between a 'human being' and a 'human person', since even a human being without, for instance, the immediately exercisable capacity for rational thought is still, by his nature, a rational being (different from animals and insects). On the other hand, if immediately exercisable capacities are what grant humans a right to life, Lee argued, then newborn infants should have no right to life either, since in their present state they are no more rational than a puppy or kitten. Likewise, persons in a temporary coma can ethically be killed on the spot. But these extreme consequences do not seem correct to almost anyone on either side of the debate, and thus it seems the possession of a rational nature is adequate for the right to life.

The problem with Boonin's argument wasn't that it was strange and Lee's wasn't... although, come to think of it, it was really strange. I've always been intrigued by what, to me, is a glaring weakness in the kinds of “sophisticated” pro-abortion arguments that philosophers like David Boonin and Judith Jarvis Thomson defend (hers is the famous 'unconscious violinist' argument); namely, that their substance is nothing more than a totally bizarre scenario. Whereas pregnancy is absolutely normal (so normal, in fact, that it is the means by which every one of us got here), Boonin and Thomson draw out hypotheticals that are nearly inconceivable. If you watch the Pomona video, you will see that throughout the debate, Boonin kept feeling forced to manipulate variables of his bone marrow story in hopes to make it look more similar to the case of unwanted pregnancy. And Lee didn't even have to point out the dissimilarities; Boonin already knew they were there (largely due to pro-choice philosophers who, Boonin said, had pointed them out to him before). But as much as I give Boonin credit for his valiant efforts to "fix" his oddball story, it was still just that: an oddball story. And he still sounded silly- not intellectual- when telling it.

For example: at one point during the question-and-answer session, Boonin started describing a scenario where “you do a fun activity and the fun activity leads it to being the case that you can then keep me alive." He explained, “if you engage in this fun activity, some weird change in your bone marrow will take place and then you’ll become an appropriate match." What? This was his attempt to make his hypothetical more parallel with the fact that sex is an enjoyable activity, but come on... I don't mean to pick on Boonin, but he is one of the leading philosophers in defense of abortion today, and this is his central argument?

I have not even discussed the actual flaws in his reasoning; for an argument does not necessarily fail just because it is weird. But indeed, Boonin's argument does unravel philosophically since there are several morally relevant differences between his bone marrow hypothetical and a woman's unwanted pregnancy. These differences include, but are not limited to, the material act (abortion as a direct killing and refusing bone marrow as an allowing someone to die), special responsibilities (parents possess certain natural responsibilities for their children that random bone marrow partners do not possess for strangers), and fairness of trade (the burdens of pregnancy, while difficult, are in no way proportional to death).

Needless to say, by the end of the debate (if not before), the audience seemed to have turned on Boonin. Lee did not have to point out the flaws in Boonin's argument; he had pointed out most of them himself. And when the question-and-answer session finally rolled around, every cross-examining student save one wanted Boonin to explain himself. Although he appeared to be the one putting forth a sophisticated argument that night, Boonin had somehow remained on the defensive virtually the entire time. Students afterward wanted to know why certain parts of his scenario didn't match up, or how the implications of his argument wouldn't just as easily justify slavery... I almost felt badly for him.

I can't tell if Boonin just feels obligated to "stick to his guns" since he has written so extensively in defense of abortion and is now well-known in that field, or if he truly believes his position is correct. I would naturally assume the latter, but from some of his own comments in this debate, it seems he is aware of the many weaknesses of his argument. At any rate, if bizarre-o scenarios about unplugging transplant tubes, unique sperm donor agreements, removable pace-makers, and "weird change[s] in your bone marrow" (all of which Boonin referenced in this video) are what a sophisticated pro-choicer is trying to foist, it looks like even the most unsophisticated pro-lifer has nothing to worry about.

Vita Pro Omni!