"Why the case against abortion is weak, ethically speaking"

Our [update: AWARD WINNING!] 2021 Salon article "Why the case against abortion is weak, ethically speaking" generated some responses. 

Here are some of those responses and some of our (or my) responses to those responses! If you know of any other responses, please let me know:

• Salon Piece Says ‘Pro-Choice Ethics’ Prove Abortion Isn’t Murder, Townhall, Katie Yoder, 4/24/2021.

A quick response: 

Dear Ms. Yoder, 

Thanks for this response. I am curious though about your claim about babies: do you really think that babies aren't conscious or aware or feeling? Surely you have been around a baby, so why do you suggest they are not conscious?  

Second, you write that "it’s wrong to commit an action with the sole purpose and intent to end the life of an innocent human being." But that's not the sole purpose and intent behind abortions: the main purpose is to end pregnancies, for a variety of reasons.  

If you meant to say that "it’s wrong to commit an action with the purpose and intent to end the life of an innocent human being," the point of the article was to observe that if that's true, then killing human beings for organ donation is wrong, as is letting anencephalic die. But these aren't wrong, although they involve "intentionally destroy[ing] the life of an innocent human being"--and this is best explained by their lacking a functioning, consciousness-making brain, and so at least early abortion is wrong. Yes, there are differences here, but they don't seem to matter. For more on that, see Thinking Critically About Abortion at www.AbortionArguments.com 

Thank you!

A longer response: Response to Katie Yoder’s “Salon Piece Says ‘Pro-Choice Ethics’ Prove Abortion Isn’t Murder.”

• Evaluating Elliot Crozat's "An Evaluation of 'Why the case against abortion is weak, ethically speaking'"
• A Response to Clinton Wilcox's "Nobis and Dudley Miss the Mark Completely on Defending Abortion"
• FYI: here are some earlier replies to some critiques from Wilcox: 1, 2. 
• Nobis and Dudley on Abortion by an anonymous "Brandon" (I don't think we can know who this person is?). We didn't write up a response to this one: is there anything worthy of responding to here?

What does anyone think of these responses? Please share any thoughts in the comments!

Contrary to some responses, our argument does not depend on thinking these various cases are "equivalent" or "exactly the same" or that there are no interesting differences among them: it does, however, depend on the idea of "brain birth" and being "brain alive," the lesser-known counterpart to brain death and being brain dead. For more on these concepts, see this 1990 LA Times article: "Is ‘brain birth’ the beginning of human life? Or conception? Science can’t draw the line, but only provide more evidence to ponder."

Here is an explanation of the argument, or one interpretation of the argument:

1. Organ donation procedures and the treatment of anencephalic newborns are morally permissible.
2. If organ donation procedures and the treatment of anencephalic newborns are morally permissible, then it’s permissible to end the lives of biologically human organisms without functioning, consciousness-making brains.
3. If it’s permissible to end the lives of biologically human organisms without functioning, consciousness-making brains, then early abortions, of fetuses without functioning, consciousness-making brains are morally permissible.
4. Therefore, early abortions, of fetuses without functioning, consciousness-making brains are morally permissible.

To respond, here’s what one could do, regarding each premise:

1. Argue that organ donation procedures and the treatment of anencephalic newborns are not morally permissible, for whatever reason(s): e.g., these are human, these are human organisms, these are human beings; there is always some chance of recovery, etc.
2. Argue that a different generalization, or none, at all, is suggested by the cases in (1). Explain why that's a better generalization to draw than what we propose. 
3. Identify a relevant difference such that (3) is false and justify the relevance of that difference: e.g., clearly, fetuses and the organ donation and anencephalic newborn cases are different: fetuses typically have a type of “potential” that the other cases don’t; fetuses, if “left alone,” so to speak will continue living, etc., but how is that relevant? Why would that make killing them wrong? Real, developed answers are needed, and the answer that “because they are human organisms” isn’t going to cut it, at least not for those who accept (1).

Here is also some further discussion of whether embryos and beginning fetuses are or can be "innocent" (and non-innocent too!): 

@nathan.nobis What is it to be "innocent"? What if something is neither innocent nor not? Inspired by @dankprolifememes #abortion #prochoice #prolife #innocence #guilt #criticalthinking #philosophy #ethics ♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis

@nathan.nobis What is it to be "innocent"? What if something is neither innocent nor not innocent? #abortion #ethics #philosophy #criticalthinking #bioethics #prochoice #prolife #innocent #innocence ♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis