Year: 2021
Type: article
Abstract: Recently, we argued that if fetuses are granted the moral status of persons, then abortion is a public health crisis, justifying an abortion ban. 1 William Simkulet 2 has responded to our argument, raising a number of criticisms.To begin with, he claims that our estimate of the harm caused by abortion focuses on mortality, and ignores the non-lethal harm that COVID-19 causes.Unfortunately, he confuses morbidity and mortality numerous times, 3 and does not seem to notice that we state morbidity is an important consideration as well as mortality.Yes, we grant that our comparison of COVID-19 with abortion compares mortality, not morbidity, but it is more difficult to quantify the harm of morbidity.In terms of years of life saved, preventing an abortion prevents far more harm than preventing a case of COVID-19.In terms of non-lethal harm, preventing a case of COVID-19 will prevent more harm than preventing an abortion-there is not usually any non-lethal harm associated with abortion.4 Our point is that they are both very serious public health crises, and it does not matter to our argument which one is judged more harmful overall.Simkulet also argues that our years of life saved harm calculations are contra to the prolife view that the immorality of abortion is based on the fetus's personhood.However, our entire argument is predicated on public health utility, not prolife viewsand on this basis, years of life saved is a major consideration.So, we do not believe these objections succeed.
Source: Bioethics
DOI: 10.1111/bioe.12981
Authors: Bruce P. Blackshaw, Daniel Rodger
Institutions: University of Birmingham, London South Bank University
Language: English
Field: Medicine
Domain: Health Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W4200434503