Department of Philosophy and Religion, Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant, MI, USA.
J Med Ethics. 2019 May;45(5):304-308. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2018-105145. Epub 2019 Feb 22.
Opposition to induced abortion rests on the belief that fetuses have a moral status comparable to beings like us, and that the loss of such a life is tragic. Antiabortion, or pro-life, theorists argue that (1) it is wrong to induce abortion and (2) it is wrong to allow others to perform induced abortion. However, evidence suggests that spontaneous abortion kills far more fetuses than induced abortion, and critics argue that most pro-life theorists neglect the threat of spontaneous abortion and ought to do more to prevent it. Friberg-Fernros contends such an obligation would be implausibly strong, arguing that induced abortions are far worse than spontaneous abortions because while both involve the tragedy of the death of the fetus, induced abortion involves a second tragedy-one person killing another. I argue this two tragedies argument fails to explain what is morally relevant about induced abortion.
反对人工流产的观点基于这样一种信念,即胎儿具有与我们类似的道德地位,而失去这样的生命是悲惨的。反堕胎或“生命至上”的理论家认为:(1) 诱导堕胎是错误的,(2) 允许他人进行诱导堕胎也是错误的。然而,有证据表明,自然流产导致的胎儿死亡比人工流产多得多,批评者认为,大多数“生命至上”的理论家忽视了自然流产的威胁,应该做更多的工作来预防它。Friberg-Fernros 认为这种义务是站不住脚的,他认为人工流产比自然流产糟糕得多,因为虽然两者都涉及到胎儿死亡的悲剧,但人工流产涉及到另一个悲剧——一个人杀死另一个人。我认为,这种两个悲剧的论点没有解释人工流产在道德上有什么相关之处。