Two Tragedies Argument: Two Mistakes

Abstract

Most opposition to abortion turns on the claim that human fetuses are full moral agents from conception (or soon afterwards). Critics argue that antiabortion theorists act hypocritically when they neglect spontaneous abortions—valuing some fetal lives and not others. Many philosophers draw a distinction between killing and letting die, with the former being morally impermissible and latter acceptable. Henrick Friberg-Fernros appeals to this distinction with his Two Tragedies Argument, contending that anti-abortion theorists are justified in prioritising preventing induced abortions over spontaneous ones, as the former involves two tragedies—a death and a killing. However, induced abortion can involve either killing or letting die, and thus this view is incompatible with the traditional anti-abortion view. Furthermore, Friberg-Fernros appears to value preventing killing attempts more than preventing actual deaths.

Prolife hypocrisy: why inconsistency arguments do not matter

“…Opponents of abortion (OAs) are frequently described as 'inconsistent.' [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] For example, it is claimed that they 'care too little' about preventing spontaneous abortion, they fail to protect surplus cryopreserved embryos (via embryo adoption), and they refuse to adopt unwanted children. We will call such arguments 'inconsistency arguments.'…”

Responding to Simkulet’s objections to the two tragedies argument

“…William Simkulet has criticised the 2TA claiming that it fails on two grounds: ‘First, it is inconsistent with most opposition to abortion, allowing—or even requiring—induced abortions, and second, it trivializes the death of the fetus” 3. My aim is to respond to this criticism and to demonstrate that it fails.…”

“…Henrik Friberg-Fernros argues that while antiabortion theories might need to do more to prevent spontaneous abortions than they currently do, they are justified in prioritising the prevention of induced abortions over spontaneous abortions, as while both abortions and miscarriages result in the tragic death of the fetus, the induced abortions contain a second tragedy: the killing of one human being by another… The Two Tragedies Argument (2TA) assumes that there is a morally relevant distinction between acting and refraining—here, killing and letting die—such that killing a fetus is far worse than letting a fetus die 3…”

“…According to Simkulet, the 2TA consequently ‘assumes that there is a morally relevant distinction between acting and refraining … such that killing a fetus is far worse than letting a fetus die’ 3. This alleged assumption lays the ground for his first criticism of the 2T2, namely that ‘it is inconsistent with most opposition to abortion’3 since 2T2 entails, according to Simkulet, that those abortions, which can be defined as an act of refraining from saving the fetus rather than killing it, are permissible. This conclusion reveals misunderstandings about the argument since it is not accurate to claim that the 2TA ‘assumes that that there is a morally relevant distinction between acting and refraining’.…”

“…Bill is dying from a disease, while Brian is about to (try to) kill what he thinks is Bill but is in fact an autonomation. James can either (1) give the medicine to Bill, or (2) stop Brian’s (would-be) killing act 3…”