David Boonin in his book In Defense of Abortion on pages 154- 164 makes the following argument. How would you respond to it?
There is a difference between voluntarily bringing about a state of affairs and voluntarily doing an action foreseeing that this may lead to a certain state of affairs. Let me give you an example of this and then let me explain how this would apply to abortion. Suppose there are two men at a restaurant- Bill and Ted. Bill wants to give the waiter a tip so he leaves money on the table. Ted voluntarily puts money on the table, but does not intend to give a tip. Why did Ted put money on the table? The money was in his back pocket and it felt uncomfortable to him so he took it out of his pocket and put it on the money. He intended to put the money back in his pocket after he was done eating. He knew that if he forgot to put the money back into this pocket that the waiter would take it. He knew that forgetting to take the money after he put it on the table would have unintended consequences. Ted finishes his meal, pays for it, but forgets to take the money that he put on the table. Since he forgot to take the money, the waiter took it.
The point of the illustration above is that Bill consented to give his money to the waiter, but Ted did not consent to give his money to the waiter even though he knew that putting the money on the table and forgetting to take it with him would have unintended consequences. This illustration is analogous to abortion. A woman who chooses to have sex and intends to get pregnant is consenting to pregnancy. A woman who chooses to have sex, but does not intend to get pregnant is not consenting to pregnancy even if she knew that having sex could lead to unintended consequences.
There is a difference between voluntarily bringing about a state of affairs and voluntarily doing an action foreseeing that this may lead to a certain state of affairs. Let me give you an example of this and then let me explain how this would apply to abortion. Suppose there are two men at a restaurant- Bill and Ted. Bill wants to give the waiter a tip so he leaves money on the table. Ted voluntarily puts money on the table, but does not intend to give a tip. Why did Ted put money on the table? The money was in his back pocket and it felt uncomfortable to him so he took it out of his pocket and put it on the money. He intended to put the money back in his pocket after he was done eating. He knew that if he forgot to put the money back into this pocket that the waiter would take it. He knew that forgetting to take the money after he put it on the table would have unintended consequences. Ted finishes his meal, pays for it, but forgets to take the money that he put on the table. Since he forgot to take the money, the waiter took it.
The point of the illustration above is that Bill consented to give his money to the waiter, but Ted did not consent to give his money to the waiter even though he knew that putting the money on the table and forgetting to take it with him would have unintended consequences. This illustration is analogous to abortion. A woman who chooses to have sex and intends to get pregnant is consenting to pregnancy. A woman who chooses to have sex, but does not intend to get pregnant is not consenting to pregnancy even if she knew that having sex could lead to unintended consequences.
Comment