Analysis of The Apple Argument Against Abortion Article by Peter Kreeft - Essay Example

Logics - Analysis of a chosen article: The Apple Argument Against Abortion by Peter Kreeft The Apple Argument Against Abortion The article, “The Apple Argument Against Abortion” was published on catholic education resource center website in 2000. It was written by Peter Kreeft Ph. D who was a professor of philosophy at Boston College at the time of writing this article. He was a student in Calvin College (AB 1959) and Fordham University (MA 1961, Ph.D., 1965). He has started his teaching career from Villanova University from 1962-1965 and later joined Boston College as a professor. Apart from many articles, he has written many books such as The Snakebite Letters, The Philosophy of Jesus, The Journey: A Spiritual Roadmap for Modern Pilgrims, Prayer: The Great Conversation: Straight Answers to Tough Questions About Prayer etc. The major idea behind this article “The Apple Argument Against Abortion” is to educate people about the consequences of performing abortion. Peter Kreeft argues against abortion in a philosophical manner throughout this article. He is making in depth analysis of the abortion issue with the help of answering certain questions like Who human are, what are the rights of human, why abortion is wrong etc and topics such as basis of morality, differences between the rights of all people and the rights of some people, arguments from skepticism etc. He also tries to analyze different cases with respect to abortion by taking different combinations such as; The fetus is a person, and we know that The fetus is a person, but we dont know that The fetus isnt a person, but we dont know that The fetus isnt a person, and we know that (Kreeft, 2000) Approach This article is mainly analytical in nature. The author tries to avoid the use of any instinctive methods in this article. He has analyzed abortion from various angles. Different dimensions of abortion were beautifully explained in this article. For example, the author took the example of an apple and the understanding of ordinary people about it, to attract the attention of the readers towards the topic. Since the author is a philosopher, a philosophical approach can be visible throughout this article. He explains various dimensions of abortion with the help of comparisons, analogies etc. It is difficult for ordinary people to understand the problems associated with abortion, especially the moral issues. The author tries to explain all those issues in a simple, but comprehensive manner so that anybody who decide to perform abortion may think twice or thrice before doing so, after reading this article. In short, the author succeeded in persuading the readers of this article to argue against abortion. Different kinds of reasoning in the article Inductive, deductive, causal and analogical reasoning techniques were used throughout this article. The following paragraph is an example of an inductive argument present in this article. I have heard it argued that we do not treat any other species in the traditional way — that is, we do not assign equal rights to all mice. Some we kill (those that get into our houses and prove to be pests); others we take good care of and preserve (those that we find useful in laboratory experiments or those we adopt as pets); still others we simply ignore (mice in the wild). The argument concludes that therefore, it is only sentiment or tradition (the two are often confused, as if nothing rational could be passed down by tradition) that assigns rights to all members of our own species (Kreeft, 2000). The above argument is an example of inductive reasoning. It is not necessary that the argument needs to be 100% right to make it as an example of inductive reasoning. It should be noted that cultures like Buddhism or Jainism treats any type of killing - killing of animal or killing of human - as a sin. But cultures like Islam or Christianity do not treat killing of animals as a sin. In short, the above argument may not be conclusive or correct everywhere, but it helps the author to strengthen his arguments against abortion. The issue of distinguishing humans and persons comes up only for two reasons: the possibility that there are nonhuman persons, like extraterrestrials, elves, angels, gods, God, or the Persons of the Trinity, or the possibility that there are some nonpersonal humans, unpersons, humans without rights (Kreeft, 2000). The above argument is also an example of inductive reasoning. Since our knowledge about this universe outside the earth is zero, we cannot deny the existence of nonhuman elements at some parts of the universe. At the same time it is quite possible that no other human elements exist in this universe apart from the one in our earth. In other words, we cannot accept or reject the idea of nonhuman elements in this universe completely. The moral premise is that all humans have the right to life because all humans are human. It is a deduction from the most obvious of all moral rules, the Golden Rule, or justice, or equality. If you would not be killed, do not kill. Its just not just, not fair. All humans have the human essence and, therefore, are essentially equal (Kreeft, 2000). The above argument is clearly an example for deductive reasoning. It says that human elements are present not only in human, but also in fetus as well. In other words, fetus should be considered as a human rather than anything else. Nobody can deny the existence of human elements in a fetus since it is a universal fact that humans can develop only from a fetus. Moreover, the entire human got their human rights simply because of the human elements involved in them. All these arguments are 100% correct and it is true everywhere. Another example of deductive reasoning is the argument that “The reason all human beings have human rights is that all human beings are human” (Kreeft, 2000). The above argument is 100% correct. Only human beings are able to possess human rights. Animals may have animal rights, but it is difficult to grand human rights to animals because of the huge differences between animals and humans. Causal and analogical reasoning methods were also used in this article by Kreeft. One causal reasoning example is given below. “Harming or killing another against his will, not by free contract, is clearly wrong; if that isnt wrong, what is?” (Kreeft, 2000). The author argues that killing of a person without his consent is a wrong act. At the same time, he justifies the killing of a person after taking his consent in unavoidable circumstances. In other words, the author supports physician assisted suicide whereas he rejects the idea of euthanasia. Here the author equates abortion with euthanasia and blames both because of the absence of consent from the victim. Our fourth principle is that we know what we are. If we know what an apple is, surely we know what a human being is. For we arent apples; we dont live as apples, we dont feel what apples feel (if anything). We dont experience the existence or growth or life of apples, yet we know what apples are. A fortiori, we know what we are, for we have "inside information," privileged information, more and better information (Kreeft, 2000). The above argument is an example for analogical reasoning. It says that a person, who knows everything about an apple, should know something about himself. In other words, if we are able to understand external objects such as apples, then we should definitely know the internal things like humanity. Humanity is staying inside the minds of a person and all the people should have the knowledge about it. The author tries to ridicule people who argue that they don’t know much about the meaning of a fetus or the unethical dimensions of performing abortion. Example of an assumption I think most people refuse to think or argue about abortion because they see that the only way to remain pro-choice is to abort their reason first. Or, since many pro-choicers insist that abortion is about sex, not about babies, the only way to justify their scorn of virginity is a scorn of intellectual virginity. The only way to justify their loss of moral innocence is to lose their intellectual innocence (Kreeft, 2000). The above paragraph presents some assumptions of the author. The author assumes that the major reason for performing abortion is the concern about sex rather than the concern about the baby. Moreover, he also assumes that people perform abortion in order to uphold their morality. It is not necessary that such generalization may always be correct. In some cases, the fetus may create problems to the life of mother. In such cases, the mother may force to abort the fetus because of the absence of any other choices left for saving her life. In such cases, it is difficult to blame the mother for killing or aborting the fetus. It is logical to think that the life of the mother is more important than the life of a fetus. Strength and weakness The major strength of this article is the philosophical approach. The author analyzes most of the issues related to abortion in a philosophical manner. Moreover, his arguments were presented in a well-organized manner. No exaggerated claims or illogical opinions were expressed throughout this article. One of the major dilemmas involved in abortion cases is the issue of morality. Morality or ethical concepts of different people are different because of their differences in belief structure. Therefore, the author tries to analyze the general aspects of abortion issue. In other words, he was successful in presenting his arguments digestible to all the readers irrespective of their different views about morality. The major weakness of this article is its failure to analyze abortion with respect to aspects other than morality. Lots of physical, psychological, social and emotional dimensions are associated with abortion. However, the author limited his attention only to the moral aspects. The author could have reduced his arguments with respect to morality in order to accommodate at least some references about some of the aspects mentioned above. References 1. Kreeft P. (2000). The Apple Argument Against Abortion Retrieved from http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/abortion/ab0045.html The Apple Argument Against Abortion PETER KREEFT I doubt there are many readers of this magazine who are pro-choice. Why, then, do I write an argument against abortion for its readers? Why preach to the choir? I will be as upfront as possible. My conclusion is that Roe v. Wade must be overturned, and my fundamental reason for this is not only because of what abortion is but because we all know what abortion is. We know what an apple is. I will try to persuade you that if we know what an apple is, Roe v. Wade must be overthrown, and that if you want to defend Roe, you will probably want to deny that we know what an apple is. Our first principle should be as undeniable as possible, for arguments usually go back to their first principles. Even now, only philosophers, scholars, "experts," media mavens, professors, journalists, and mind-molders dare to claim that we do not know what an apple is. From the premise that "we know what an apple is," I move to a second principle that is only an explication of the meaning of the first: that we really know what an apple really is. If this is denied, our first principle is refuted. It becomes, "We know, but not really, what an apple is, but not really." If we know what an apple is, surely we know what a human being is. For we arent apples; we dont live as apples, we dont feel what apples feel (if anything). We dont experience the existence or growth or life of apples, yet we know what apples are. There is obviously more mystery in a human than in an apple, but there is also more knowledge. The principle that morality depends on metaphysics means that rights depend on reality, or what is right depends on what is. For instance, in the current debate about "animal rights," some of us think that animals do have rights and some of us think they dont, but we all agree that if they do have rights, they have animal rights, not human rights or plant rights, because they are animals, not humans or plants. The reason all human beings have human rights is that all human beings are human. Only two philosophies of human rights are logically possible. Either all human beings have rights, or only some human beings have rights. There is no third possibility. Suppose you believe that all human beings have rights. Do you believe that all human beings have rights because they are human beings? Or do you believe that all human beings have rights because some human beings say so — because some human wills have declared that all human beings have rights? Some people want to be killed. I wont address the morality of voluntary euthanasia here. But clearly, involuntary euthanasia is wrong; clearly, there is a difference between imposing power on another and freely making a contract with another. Harming or killing another against his will, not by free contract, is clearly wrong; if that isnt wrong, what is? Mother Teresa argued, simply, "If abortion is not wrong, nothing is wrong." The fetus doesnt want to be killed; it seeks to escape. The issue of distinguishing humans and persons comes up only for two reasons: the possibility that there are nonhuman persons, like extraterrestrials, elves, angels, gods, God, or the Persons of the Trinity, or the possibility that there are some nonpersonal humans, unpersons, humans without rights. Traditional common sense and morality say all humans are persons and have rights. Modern moral relativism says that only some humans are persons, for only those who are given rights by others, slaves, Jews, political enemies, liberals, fundamentalists — or unborn babies. The life of the individual member of every animal species begins at conception. In other words, all humans are human, whether embryonic, fetal, infantile, young, mature, old, or dying. The moral premise is that all humans have the right to life because all humans are human. It is a deduction from the most obvious of all moral rules, the Golden Rule, or justice, or equality. If you would not be killed, do not kill. Its just not just, not fair. All humans have the human essence and, therefore, are essentially equal. I think most people refuse to think or argue about abortion because they see that the only way to remain pro-choice is to abort their reason first. Or, since many pro-choicers insist that abortion is about sex, not about babies, the only way to justify their scorn of virginity is a scorn of intellectual virginity. The only way to justify their loss of moral innocence is to lose their intellectual innocence. There are four possibilities: The fetus is a person, and we know that; The fetus is a person, but we dont know that; The fetus isnt a person, but we dont know that; The fetus isnt a person, and we know that. In Case 1, where the fetus is a person and you know that, abortion is murder. In Case 2, where the fetus is a person and you dont know that, abortion is manslaughter. In Case 3, the fetus isnt a person, but you dont know that. So abortion is just as irresponsible as it is in the previous case. Only in Case 4 is abortion a reasonable, permissible, and responsible choice. But note: What makes Case 4 permissible is not merely the fact that the fetus is not a person but also your knowledge that it is not, your overcoming of skepticism. This undercuts even our weakest, least honest escape: to pretend that we dont even know what an apple is, just so we have an excuse for pleading that we dont know what an abortion is. Read More