Defending the two tragedies argument: a response to Simkulet

Abstract

According to the two-tragedies argument proponents of pro-life can justifiably prioritize efforts to prevent abortion rather than miscarriages due to the fact that abortions in contrast to miscarriages involves usually the act of killing. William Simkulet has recently argued against this argument claiming that it fails as it (a) is in conflict with the common sense pro-life view on abortion and (b) leads to an overestimation of the moral value of preventing the ‘second tragedy’, namely the act of killing, compared with the value of preventing the death of an individual. In this article, I argue against to his charges against the two tragedies argument by demonstrating that this argument is not only compatible but also in line with the common sense pro-life view and that the argument does not overestimate moral significance of the act of killing.

The Scourges: Why Abortion Is Even More Morally Serious than Miscarriage

“…This is perhaps best exemplified by Lactantius’ comments on killing at the turn of the fourth century: “Therefore, with regard to this precept of God, there ought to be no exception at all; but that it is always unlawful to put to death a man, whom God willed to be a sacred animal” ( Divine Institutes, 6.20 ). Finally, as Friberg-Fernros (2019) points out, the intention is extremely important for the pro-life view, which is why pro-lifers allow the foreseen death of fetuses to save the mother’s life, without ever allowing the intended death of fetuses.…”